View Comments

• Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not. For all those who do not know what a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.So, how does your foot taste?

• artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.* Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.” In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.” And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”*Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species. Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, whereas less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose the ones with gene mutations that made them capable of surviving in their new environment. As a result, evolutionists speculate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.

• Not the universe...just man...I'll leave you with this excerpt from an article I found that shows you believing in evolution is just as much an act of faith as believing in creation is. And by the way, by definition, I'm a scientist(engineer). Ciao!“Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course, experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution with the same undisputed support?Before answering that question, we need to clear up something. Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. For example, humans can selectively breed dogs so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears.* Some scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.”However, evolutionists teach that small changes accumulated slowly over billions of years and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apelike creatures into men. These proposed big changes are defined as “macroevolution.”Charles Darwin, for example, taught that the small changes we can observe implied that much bigger changes—which no one has observed—are also possible. He felt that over vast periods of time, some original, so-called simple life-forms slowly evolved—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on earth.To many, this claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* In reality, though, the teaching of evolution rests on three myths. Consider the following.Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.The facts. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell.* Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that

• rob, the bible tells me that "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." I don't know exactly how that explains the spherical nature of earth. oh, and the bible also tells me that the universe was created 6000 years ago....

• FYI, belief the Bible is fact and believe in God are two completely different things. Also, the fact that there were people who were no ignorant of certain things chronologically prior to groups of people that were ignorant, does not make it "divine".

• A book that told you the earth was round thousands of years before Pythagoras "discovered" it and told you the earth was hanging upon nothing hundreds of years before Copernicus "figured it out". It even talks about the water cycle 1500 years before the guy credited with "discovering" it did.But I guess those were input after the fact....is that what the argument is? Of course.By the way, all those guys above believed in God....just saying...

• Exactly.

• And therein lies the problem. You are relying on the Bible. A book, containing other books written by different people. People who we have no idea of knowing whether they were writing factually based on observation, writing complete allegory, or some combination thereof. A book that did not exist as an assembled work until more than three centuries after the events took place when the Council of Nicaea decided to piece together the parts they thought fit in with the current state of the religion. Then the book as been translated and retranslated a number of times over the course of thousands of years. This book is the basis for an argument against something that came from real, modern, quantifiable analyses using the scientific method. The bible would never hold up in a court of law as evidence of anything occuring. A tweet from Snooki has a more reliable basis in fact.

• You asked about creation, not evolution.You tell me why there aren't any 3-eyed bears? Wouldn't all the animals evolve that third eye in the back of their head so they'd stop getting shot in the ass by hunters?

• so you're saying that's it? no more evolution because the creator rested?