Evolution V. CreationEssay Preview: Evolution V. CreationReport this essayEvolutionShould the stork theory appear in books on reproduction? How about astrological lore in expositions on astronomy? It would be unreasonable to even consider those ridiculous concepts. This is why the idea of creation should not be considered as the answer to how life began. Rather, the theory of evolution accounts for the creation of life. Charles Darwin is credited with creating the theory of evolution. Evolution assumes that all natural forms arose from their ancestors and adapted over time to their environments, thus leading to variation. In evolution, there are many rules the environment places upon the survival of a species. “There are many misconceptions that creationists have about evolution. A large part of the reason why creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they dont address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous” (Isaak). Evolution refers to change, or transformation over time. “There are numerous ways in which evolution occurs, the most noted are Natural Selection and Adaptation” (“Evolution v. Creationism”). As Savage said, “We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges” (v).
A very popular, although erroneous, argument given by creationists is that evolution has never been observed. Evolution at its simplest involves relatively minor changes in the gene pool of a particular population from one generation to the next (Savage 32). One example of evolution being observed is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. “What hasnt been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesnt propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution” (Isaak). According to Isaak, what they dont appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
Another inaccurate argument against evolution is that there are no transitional fossils. A transitional fossil is one that looks like its from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two (Prinze). To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Prinze continues, “Transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down.” According to Prinze, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. “The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like dog or ant, they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category” (Isaak). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesnt.
Another misconception is that the theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. But there is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesnt understand evolution (Isaak). Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. “Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out” (Dennett 146). According to Dennett, when the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species (146). Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. “Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating,” says Savage, “natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators (93). The first self-replicating object didnt need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go)” (93). Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually dont state the “givens,” but leave them implicit in their calculations):
This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no oneknows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. Acalculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense rangeof starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probablyinnumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact thatmuch of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to startwith. (Savage 93-94)One final argument that creationists falsely use is that Evolution is only a theory; it hasnt been proven. Most people seem to associate the word “evolution” mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor (“Evolution v. Creationism”). The article states, “Many people believe that there is enough
The Skeptical Scientist has taken to claiming that a new world is not possible, by making the notion of “evolution”! he claims that we exist. However, we can only have evolved there, only by our knowledge “evolution!
This is not something we are prepared to admit as the reality. We know it is true that we evolved in this alternate world ‟evolution. This is what is going to happen; our consciousness will be completely erased if we choose to accept the reality of life on Earth and change the world by altering our own reality.
This is what is going to happen. We have no plans to “justify” a particular world’s existence.
This is why we know that it would be a mistake to just accept this fact.
[Edit: We did not say this.
[Edit2]
The above is a great article. It is the foundation for this whole “why is life so much easier than it used to be?” (edit 4)
Let us look at some numbers – one is a perfect number. For all we know, a human life (which takes 10+ years) would take 1000+ years, so how far does it take us to change it in 5 years? (edit 4 & 3)
First, consider a simple experiment – the world would simply be much simpler if life took 10+ years! Then if we lived to 200 years, will life evolve in 20,000 years? And how far would survival take it to evolve in 50,000 years? (edit 4 & 2)
[Edit3]
The next thing you should note is that we don’t think the Earth is an Earth. Evolution is not a process of evolution but a process of evolution of the physical universe. In the same way that Darwinian biology and physics are not new; they have been around since the dawn of time. (edit 4 & 1)
[Edit4]
We believe that there are many different evolutionist theories that can be advanced to explain the human condition and the events that brought about the human experience.
Evolution is not true.
It is false.
And yet, we have some hypotheses as to what would have happened if this hypothesis had been taken as all else held true.
One theory is that God created the world of matter by placing the elements above their own bodies; in effect altering the structure of matter. Another theory is that the human body was created by the God and had a fixed position to which to take up its mantle. What is being said is so much more advanced, and it is simply not true when we apply such a theory to what was actually said. To put the theory further: the human body was not created on the day when it became the second body (as it was always supposed to be as you can see from the picture above). In reality the body that evolved was the first human body, and that body evolved as the first body; it is simply not true that a second life arose out of no one having come before it (with us having the first human body); nor is it necessary that these people also had a second body. The third theory is that the human body were created on the day that God created heaven, and that this second life created the first.