@Six_Days:
Well, I took the time to read the above links and noticed something - neither of them support the claim of evoution.
Well, then their support for creationism is even weaker.
The creationist site referenced only states that natural selection is observed to happen at a species level only. Moths are still moths. The evolutionist site provides the same.
The creationist site puts emphasis on this, yes. The evolutionist site links natural selection and evolution, with natural selection being one of the “tools” that makes evolution work.
The peppered moth story fits in perfectly with the idea of creationism. This is the same for all of the other “proofs” of evolution like Darwin’s finches. How does a moth changing into a different type of moth demonstrate evolution?
So, god createrd all the species, or one being with a all-including gene pool, so that the other sub-species could “devolute” from there?
We can see that species change. We can see that they do it “on their own”, means without human influence. Also, the definition of species is something we should discuss.
If you look at the latin names of animals, where do you draw the “species defining” line?
After the first word (Genus)? Such as “Homo” in “Homo sapiens”?
Or after the second (species) or even later (sub-species)??
(btw, the 14 finches are all different species, but same Genus)
Are wolves and dogs in the same species? No they are not, they are both in the same Genus “Canis”, but different species. And, man created dog…
thus it was not god to create all species.
Or, did you not pay attention to your words and mean Genus when talking of species?
If so, when did Homo arrive, and were did Australopithecus go? Was Homo created, or did it evolve?
So, the moths changed on sub-species level, agreed. But they are an example for “how nature changes”. Then we look further and see different species, who all of course are similar (if in the same Genus). We see species go extinct. We find material of species extinct for a long time, and of different species that (as we come closer to our time) look more and more alike the ones we know today.
Then we find possible mechanisms in nature, that allow for change. We see it happen on “small levels”, like in sub-species range (see above).
The only proof we have for evolution is the re-arrangement or degeneration of genetic information within a species.
We also see new information be created. We find microbes not degenerate, but gaining information (like more resistances to more and more antibiotics).
How can we not come to the conclusion, with the tools we have, with the timeline we have, that Geni and species evolve?
Notice: re-arrangement can create information.
Read this
acccee fiiiiiimnnnor sssttu
Information in there? Not much…
though, simple re-arragning makes it:
creationism is unscientific
Information in there: a lot!
Thus re-arranging information is the way how new information is created, this works for letters and for genetics (which has an even smaller set of letters).
Or would you say: “I have seen all letters and numbers, i don’t need any books, there will be nothing new? They are all only re-arrangements of the letters i know…. how boring. I want something new.”
You must, if you follow a consistent logic.
