Just up at the Institute for Biblical Studies: “The (In)adequacy of Darwinian Evolution.”
August 24, 2011
The (In)adequacy of Darwinian Evolution
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Evolution, Naturalism, Science[3] Comments
[3] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- August 24, 2011 at 1:18 pm
- Category :
- Apologetics, Evolution, Naturalism, Science
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Thinking to Believe
%d bloggers like this:
September 16, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Your article has only proven you have absolutely no handle on evolution what so ever.
You say that duplicated genes can’t increase genetic information. EVER HEARD OF PARALOGS??? Cellular processes sometimes result in gene duplications and if that copy isn’t eliminated, then Natural Selection is favoring a gene duplication. Over time, this duplicated gene may acquire a completely different function; i.e.GENE FAMILIES. There is an entire field based upon ortholog and paralog analysis; GENOMICS, ever heard of GENOMICS???
Oh this one is a gem, “there is no empirical evidence demonstrating that finches can evolve into squirrels given enough time.” Idiot, is that what you seriously think evolution is claiming? Major lineages such as birds and mammals split from a common ancestor millions of years ago. There are tons of transitional fossils you are completely disregarding.
To ‘believe’ in micorevolution and not marcoevolution is absurd. Microevolution generates the raw material that Natural Selection acts upon; aka, the identified mechanism responsible macroevolution. So after you acknowledge the existence of microevolution, you then go on to criticize the genetic mechanisms that are part of the microevolutionary process. Duplicated genes that take on new functions over time is just one known example of microevolution. So you accept that only some known-concepts in microevolution are possible?
You have some nerve to proclaim that you know what scientists have to show in order to ‘prove’ evolution. Science is a self-correcting process, if anything is wrong, then a new paradigm based off of ALL evidence emerges.
In my experience, only nut jobs believe they have a handle on genetics without any formal training.
You should spend less time trying to pick apart evolution and spend more time proving your creationist paradigm. Even if your arguments were valid, it doesn’t prove creationism. If evolution is wrong, then it is up to you to provide a BETTER explanation.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Are you a drive-by commenter, or are you going to come back to view my response? I don’t want to waste my time on a reply that will not be read.
Jason
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:53 pm
A friend of mine used to know you and thinks it’s humorous when I respond to your flawed notions of evolution. I don’t mind debating since it is good practice in solidifying my knowledge of evolutionary genetics. If you don’t want it to be a complete waste, I recommend just discussing a few topics at a time considering my response as to why you’re wrong could be lengthy.
LikeLike