Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution

**Papewaio** · 05-10-2005, 07:45

Where matter came from is in the realm of Astrophysics and Quantum physics. Those theories do not rely on evolution nor vice a versa.

It not a good form to bundle a theory with other ones.

Evolution is one thing.

'Macro' Evolution is a Creationist term that scientists do not use. Scientists refer to things like the Big Bang, Star Sequence, Star (Solar) System formation, Planetary formation. Which for some reason creationists try and bundle altogether with evolution.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-10-2005, 08:04

Macro' Evolution is a Creationist term that scientists do not use.

Is that so?

MACROEVOLUTION

Were Darwin's extrapolations justified? Judging from the conclusions of many of the scientists attending one of the most important conferences in evolutionary biology in the past forty years, the answer is probably not.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

... Evolution, according to the Modern Synthesis, moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages as revealed in the fossil record. However, the problem is that according to most paleontologists the principle feature of individual species within the fossil record is stasis, not change...

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

* Lewin, R. (1980)
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire"
Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

"Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."

* Feduccia, Alan (1985)
"On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers"
The Beginning of Birds
Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, p. 76

"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved."

* Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996)
"Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,"
Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0032, 1996, p. 361

This theme is developed at much greater length, and with considerable insight, in Rudy Raff's new book, The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form, University of Chicago Press, 1996 (520 pages, $29.95 in paperback).

"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."

* Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1940)
The Material Basis of Evolution
New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press, p. 8

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has not clothes.'"

* K. Hsu (1986)
"Darwin's Three Mistakes"
Geology, vol. 14, p. 534
(K. Hsu is a geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich.)

"Micro-evolution involves mainly changes within potentially continuous populations, and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macro-evolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups, and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of micro-evolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."

* Simpson G.G. (1949)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p97

"[T]he origin of no innovation of large evolutionary significance is known."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45

"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 206

Its a commonly used term and was not made up by creationist but by the . I suppose these guys are creationists

Macroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the species level, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of major novelties such as tetrapod limbs and insect wings, the waxing and waning of multi-species lineages over long time-scales, and the impact of continental drift and other physical processes on the evolutionary process. With its unique time perspective, paleontology has a central role to play in this area: the fossil record provides a direct, empirical window onto large-scale evolutionary patterns, and thus is invaluable both as a document of macroevolutionary phenomena, and as a natural laboratory for the framing and testing of macroevolutionary hypotheses. This is a vibrant field (if underpopulated relative to the wealth of material and questions within its domain), with a steady stream of papers, books and symposia and an increasing interaction with a broad range of disciplines from astrophysics to developmental biology. The result has been a number of insights into the processes that have shaped the major evolutionary patterns of present-day and ancient organisms.

LINK

Maybe you meant scientists have a differnt definition of Macro evolution. In that case I agree. Evolution cannot account for the creation of man nevermind the universe. You mention the big bang theory. Where di the matter come from and how did it get condensed and the explode in the first place? This is where it gets heavy. Does everything have a beggining and an end? Or is it a never ending circle ?

**Papewaio** · 05-10-2005, 08:10

The formation of matter is not a theory involving evolution unless you are one of these creationists with their version of macro-evolution.

I've seen posted a few times Macro-evolution in the creationist sense including the big bang, planetary formtation and a host of other things.

Where matter comes from does not change how evolution occurs.

**Papewaio** · 05-10-2005, 08:17

The Big Bang was the beginning it was the start of space, time, energy and matter. What happened beforehand is taken as unknowable. It may have spawned off another universe. The thing about the Big Bang is it isn't just the matter and energy that was created it was also the laws of physics.

Evolution quite easily explains how humans came into being. It is rather a simple process to create a human from a single cell. It is actually proportionally more complex to create the single cell from the basic building blocks.

**Ja'chyra** · 05-10-2005, 09:24

At least science offers supporting evidence which you can decide to trust, or not, what does creationism offer? Faith and an ancient comic book? No thanks.

**KafirChobee** · 05-10-2005, 09:55

Ignorance, breeds ignorance. Not sure who said it, but they were right.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.

Trying to sell a biblical concept, is like accepting mythology. The perceptions of men do not out weigh the scientific advances of same. To argue that man has not progressed beyond the groveling to wish that the GOD of harvest bring them rains, or GOD of war bring them victory, or the GOD of ... what ever do what ever? Well. maybe. For some. For those that accept that they truely do not grasp the concept of a supremebeing or imagine his (her) abilities.

First off, God's name is Sally. I know this because he told me so. He doesn't mind if you call him Sal, unless he is in drag of course.

Now. A few other things I must mention - please, understand it ain't me - it's God .... er, Sally ... laying this down.

First off, Sally, admits we came from apes - it was just easier that way.

Go read, "Letters from EARTH", by Mark Twain - and grow the hell up.

**KafirChobee** · 05-10-2005, 10:07

Ignorance, breeds ignorance. Not sure who said it, but they were right.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.

Trying to sell a biblical concept, is like accepting mythology. The perceptions of men do not out weigh the scientific advances of same. To argue that man has not progressed beyond the groveling to wish that the GOD of harvest bring them rains, or GOD of war bring them victory, or the GOD of ... what ever do what ever? Well. maybe. For some. For those that accept that they truely do not grasp the concept of a supremebeing or imagine his (her) abilities.

First off, God's name is Sally. I know this because he told me so. He doesn't mind if you call him Sal, unless he is in drag of course.

Now. A few other things I must mention - please, understand it ain't me - it's God .... er, Sally ... laying this down.

First off, Sally, admits we came from apes - it was just easier that way.

Go read, "Letters from EARTH", by Mark Twain - and grow the hell up.

**Lazul** · 05-10-2005, 10:27

yey! I just found proof that evolution exist in a way that animals adapt to its enviroment.

Swedish; "illustrated science" talks about a lizzard that has hornes and it is usually hunted by a certain bird. The intresting thing is that the bird usually attacks the lizzards with shorter hornes and as a result of that the lizzards in generall are now growing larger hornes. 10 procent in 20-35 years.

There you have it, evolution exist.

**Adrian II** · 05-10-2005, 08:13

Please, let's stop the nonsense that 'no transitional forms have been found'. Here's something about whales for y'all. Fill in the rest for yourself if you want, but don't repeat cr@p from creationist websites without doing a little checking.

Link