Comments on Creation and Evolution Blog: Overselling Universal Common Ancestry

Phillip Johnson did this video a while back, but i...

2006-04-26T11:56:00.000-07:00

Phillip Johnson did this video a while back, but it is still quite relevant to the subject:

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=6444

"Understand evolution."I do. I've done a lot of r...

2006-04-26T09:49:00.000-07:00

"Understand evolution."

I do. I've done a lot of research on it.

"The theory itself is simple:
Life adapts to it's environment. The process through which this happens is random mutation, selective reproductive pressure, and selective survival pressure.

That's all it proposes."

Not really. Evolution is highly equivocated. It means what you say when it suits the arguer (i.e. when asked to provide evidence), and it means other things (like universal common ancestry) when it suits the arguer (like when trying to use paltry evidence to prove a big theory). For example, when the AAAS uses the term "evolution" they are actually explicitly referring to the common ancestry concept. When people talk about "creation-vs-evolution" usually what the issues include are (1) common ancestry, and (2) long ages.

"Everything else you talk about is an extension of evolution, but not evolution."

If you look at what the public proponents of evolution are saying (the head of the AAAS, the head of the NCSE, etc.), this is false.

If, by evolution, you mean "change over time", I know of NO CREATIONISTS WHATSOEVER that disagree with such a concept. To frame the argument as being between those who accept change and those who don't is simply creating a straw man.

However, even in your very small definition of evolution, it isn't supported by evidence. The substrate of beneficial organismic change IS NOT random mutation. That is simply absurd from a combinatorial standpoint. This concept was actually established before we even knew what the molecular basis of genes were (i.e. DNA). I've written on this several times, here are a few:

http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-on-directed-mutagenesis.html
http://baraminology.blogspot.com/2006/04/luck-favors-prepared-darling.html
http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/06/evolution-chance-and-design-to-cb940.html

Understand evolution.The theory itself is simple:L...

2006-04-26T09:06:00.000-07:00

Understand evolution.

The theory itself is simple:
Life adapts to it's environment. The process through which this happens is random mutation, selective reproductive pressure, and selective survival pressure.

That's all it proposes.

Everything else you talk about is an extension of evolution, but not evolution. Common descent is assumed to be true, but if it is not we will throw it out; evolution remains unchanged. Abiogenesis is also assumed to be true, but if it is not it will also be thrown out without affecting evolution.

God created animals in their kind says nothing about evolution. If reptiles evolved from reptiles and mammals from mammals, then fine, but the process of evolution itself still holds.

A dog with warmer fur will survive a harsh winter where a dog with less fur will not; that is selective survival pressure for warm fur. That is evolution in action. A fish with a more flexible spine that can swim faster and avoid predators is more likely to survive and pass on that trait than a fish with an inflexible spine. That is selective survival pressure as well.