Friday Feedback for 8/13/2010
In a recent blog, some readers presume that, because of the content, we must not understand how evolution really works. One reader wrote this:
My true intent (at least with this thread) is to demonstrate that the writers here are either ignorant of evolutionary theory, or are intentionally misrepresenting it. If they are making an honest mistake in stating what they believe the theory to say, that’s one thing. However, when they make the same statements, even after being corrected, that is dishonesty. In my opinion, it is missing the mark.
You state: Just because you believe that something isn’t an “accurate representation of what the theory [says]” doesn’t mean that you’re right, and doesn’t make the other person wrong or a liar.” If they are accurately representing evolutionary theory, then they should be able to bring out an example of a text that supports their point. This is a direct challenge to you and to CSE—to examine any modern mainstream textbook on evolution or molecular biology and let me know and every other reader know where it says that chromosome number is related to organism complexity. You won’t find it. I teach on this subject and have used many texts. The fact is that the evidence states otherwise. In fact, there is a name for a related phenomenon—the C-value paradox. This concept is that genome size does not correspond with organism complexity.
Unfortunately, you are missing the point. The goal of the article is not to say that the number of chromosomes is related to evolution, but rather to demonstrate that evolution picks and chooses what to look for in order to make the theory seem possible! You can arrange things in an order all day long, but it does not represent a relationship between the two things. The following example should demonstrate this:
Here we have the famous fork evolution talked about in Seminar #4. Notice the amazing way that the fork evolved from the knife over millions of years! See? Arranging things in order, based on appearance or anything else, does not prove they had a common ancestor, but instead a common designer.
In the article “10 Questions for Evolutionists,” several people were upset that many of the questions did not deal with “evolution.”
The article was not titled “10 Questions about Evolution,” it was “10 Questions for Evolutionists.” To say that we are ignorant of evolution theory because the first seven questions deal with the problems before life in the evolution theory is a terrible excuse and an obvious attempt to avoid the questions rather than dealing with some honest issues that need to be addressed. Indeed, “cosmic evolution,” “chemical evolution,” “stellar evolution,”and “organic evolution” have some serious problems before we even reach the stage of “macro” or “micro” evolution. These questions do not show a lack of understanding of the evolution world view, but rather pose a serious threat to the entire religious world view of Evolutionism.