Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Definition'.
Found 2 results
"... the evidence supporting descent with modification ... is both overwhelming and compelling." Many Darwinists wonder how we could possibly deny the 'fact of evolution'. After all, we can actually observe changes in nature, such as bacteria 'evolving' to become resistant to antibiotics. How can the history-denying people possibly not see this? The only explanation, Darwinists say, is that we are willingly ignorant of the truth. However, we do not deny variation. Not even the most fundamental die-hard scientist would ever deny that change occurs! Presenting variations, such as bacterial resistance, with the view that we deny them is a misrepresentation of our position. A net gain of new genetic information cannot arise by recombination of genes in the same way that rearranging a small book will not result in the British library. Theoretically, another small book with new information may arise, but there is no net gain. Define evolution ! Evolutionists usually define their theory as 'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'. But these definitions are oversimplified. The theory of Evolution (the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor) requires a net gain in new genetic information for it to occur. E.g., for a Lego house to change into a skyscraper, we must add the instructions for making steel, bricks, foundations etc. to the manual of the Lego house. These instructions do not already exist in the manual and cannot come about by rearranging the information already inside the manual. In much the same way, we must add the 'instructions' which make blood, limbs, organs etc. to the genome of our supposed microbe-like common ancestor. These instructions must be entirely new — they cannot come about by a rearrangement of pre-existing DNA, since the 500,000 DNA 'letters' of our common ancestor must change to the three billion 'letters' of humans. The Real Definition according to neo-darwinism: 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'. 'Change over time', 'descent with modification', and 'a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time' are too ambiguous and do not actually explain how all life may have evolved from a common ancestor. So why does this matter? Fallacy of equivocation: Evolutionists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution). This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument. The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution. When an evolutionist claims that evolution is a fact, as almost all do, ask him what he means by the word 'evolution' and what facts he has to support this. No doubt 'evolution' will mean 'change over time' and the facts supporting it are simply examples of change over time, such as bacterial resistance (an example which everyone entirely agree with). To sum it all up, evolutionists provide examples of simple variation (where no new genetic information is added) to prove microbes-to-man evolution (where a net gain in new genetic information is required). This is illogical to say the least. http://evolutiondismantled.com/evolution-that-slippery-little-word N.B: Allele: One of two or more genes that may occur alternatively at a given site (locus) on a chromosome (gene version).