Evolution or Mevolution?

Doesn’t this photo magnificently capture our cultural narrative? This isn’t evolution it’s mevolution (sic).

Mevolution

Mevolution

My business is presenting the evidence:

To skirt around the fact that the evidence refutes Darwin’s theory of gradualism, some scientists have proposed their own theory: punctuated equilibrium. This theory, championed by Stephen Gould and others, proposes that evolution happened in rapid spurts (by some mysterious genetic mechanism) followed by long periods of stability. They suggest that species had to evolve quickly based on sudden changes in their environment, such as flood or drought.

There are a couple of problems with this theory as well. First, according to the website “Understanding Evolution”, which explains evolution to teachers, “factors in the environment…are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation.” They state that experiments showed mutations “did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful.” Again, mutations are completely random and not based on the environment. So if there is no evidence to show that mutations could cause creatures to evolve gradually over millions of years, why would we think they could somehow manage to evolve rapidly?

Second, there is nothing in the fossil record that would lead us to believe this was the case. Very conveniently for proponents of this theory, evolution supposedly occurred so quickly that there wasn’t time to leave any fossil evidence. I’m afraid the only thing actually evolving is their theory.

In his book Darwinism; The Refutation of a Myth, Swedish embryologist Soren Lovtrup writes, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But that is what has happened in biology…I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.”

Advertisements
10 comments
  1. Chris said:

    According to Ray Comfort a New Zealand-born Christian minister and evangelist. “factors in the environment…are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation.”

    Adrian tires to mislead us hear by presenting the information as if given by a authoritative body.

    This leads me to mistrust the piece as a whole. It deliberately and quite wrongly distorts the facts. Adrian chose to quite maliciously bash something that interferes with his belief that a supernatural God cares about us. This is quite dangerous. It is this methodology that manifests itself in all of the worlds human misery.

    Although I believe that although I do not share his opinion, I would die trying to defend his right to have it. That said, this is so close to the thin edge of wedge of bigotry and intolerance (dressed up and a scientific debate) that it should not be tolerated.

  2. Chris said:

    “There are many creationist articles and books which distort the views of Lovtrup on evolution.[4] Lovtrup has been quote mined by Jerry Bergman and Ray Comfort and has been cited in hundreds of other creationist publications.[5] Lovtrup is not anti-evolution and does not dispute the fact of evolution, but no matter how many times this is stated, the creationists still continue to quote mine his book.”

    • Luvtrup’s words not mine. Instead of examining me let’s examine the evidence – Are you saying you have evidence to show that mutations can cause creatures to evolve gradually over millions of years? If you have I urge you to bring it forward, it’ll give your retirement fund a phenomenal boost!

      • Chris Woods said:

        I think it’s totally fair of Chris to examine you not the evidence.
        This is your blog. You are misrepresenting Luvtrup’s views either deliberately or because you unquestioningly believe every deliberate misrepresentation that Ray Comfort spews forth.

        Luvtrup has a problem with Darwin’s theory of NATURAL SELECTION not EVOLUTION.

        Here is another quote from Luvtrup. (One that doesn’t have important parts of the text removed.)…
        “Indeed, the nature and the wealth of the corroborating evidence are such that the theory on the reality of evolution turns out to be one of the best substantiated theories in biology, perhaps in the natural sciences.”

  3. Okay Chris you got me, I am sorry, it would seem that Luvtrup may believe in evolution. However, look at his words, they are clearly presuppositional. He speaks of the reality of evolution and from that he has looked for corroborating evidence. He decided evolution is the best theory on offer, not exactly scientific is it? Mmm… his words.

    So are you buying into Stephen Gould’s theory in the piece above or are you one of the old timers who believes in the gradual evolution theory? As an open minded person you need to know before you answer that the fossil record contains no, I repeat no, transitional species, on which the whole evolutionary theory hangs. Here’s some food for further thought from J.S. Jones of the Department of Genetics and Biometry, University College, London written for a book review in the magazine Nature:

    ‘Palaeoanthropologists seem to make up for a lack of fossils with an excess of fury, and this must now be the only science in which it is still possible to become famous just by having an opinion. As one cynic says, in human palaeontology [the study of fossils] the consensus depends on who shouts loudest.’

    Do you realise that nothing is the absence of something? If, as I suspect you might be, are an evolutionist then you trust a theory that proposes something came from nothing, that is unscientific. Reason alone tells us that if we have design so there has to be designer, just as if you see a painting, while you haven’t met the painter you know there is one. Hello.

    You and I will one day stand before Almighty God to give an account for our lives; every thought, every deed and every action that stemmed from our wretched hearts. That’s why people follow such unscientific, irrational theories that there is no source for the information in the universe because they don’t want to face the reality that they are judged and guilty for every lie, theft, dirty thought, dishonouring of parents, blasphemy and unbelief. That’s all, that’s the reason and that’s the truth which I offer because I care and it’s good news. You have conscience, it cries out to you, listen to it.

  4. “You and I will one day stand before Almighty God to give an account for our lives….”;

    Shame, you were doing quite well until this silly line.

    • It’s worth remembering that it matters not if we believe something silly, what matters is that we consider if it is true. The Bible is clear, ‘it is appointed once for man to die and then face judgement’. We have the weighty responsibility of free will. You are at liberty to reject or accept what the Bible teaches, however, just because you don’t believe it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

  5. Chris Woods said:

    Adrian,

    I just thought I should try to clarify your statements and attempt to give you a better understanding of the concept of evolution, and more specifically Natural Selection.

    You state…
    ‘according to the website “Understanding Evolution”, which explains evolution to teachers, “factors in the environment…are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation.” They state that experiments showed mutations “did not occur because the organism was placed in a situation where the mutation would be useful.” Again, mutations are completely random and not based on the environment.’

    All of this is completely true. Environments do not influence mutation. Random mutations, whether they are good, bad, helpful or unhelpful, will occur regardless of external factors.
    However, once these mutations have occurred, non-random environmental factors will influence which mutations are more likely to be passed on to successive generations.

    Unfortunately your next comment…
    ‘So if there is no evidence to show that mutations could cause creatures to evolve gradually over millions of years, why would we think they could somehow manage to evolve rapidly?’
    … is completely wrong.
    Firstly, there IS evidence that mutations cause gradual evolution. Secondly, when evolutionists talk of rapid change they mean rapid on an evolutionary scale. ie. many thousands of years.

    You have quote-mined the Understanding Evolution website. (Presumably with lines you have found on a creationist website.)
    It is a shame that you have not read the pages on the Understanding Evolution site headed “Misconceptions about evolution” because I think it would help greatly with your understanding.
    Hopefully, once you have read it, you will genuinely understand the quotes on creationist websites where evolutionists ‘slip up’. You will realise that they haven’t ‘slipped up’ but it is the creationists quoting them that do not even have a tenuous grasp of the theory they are trying to demolish.

    Seriously Adrian, you should read it, if only ‘to know your enemy’.

    Chris Woods

  6. Thank you. In return I would like to share this helpful presentation:

  7. Chris Woods said:

    The scientific quote used at the end of this clip is from nanoscientist James Tour.
    Despite the creationist in the video making it sound like Tour is his best mate and the quote was spoken over lunch, it is actually quote-mined from a lecture Tour gave in 2000.

    Here are some of James Tour’s more recent quotes…

    Quote 1
    “Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation.”
    ie. He is a nanoscientist, not an evolutionary scientist.

    Quote 2
    “I do not well-understand the stance of many of my creationist friends regarding their scientific evidence for creation or intelligent design, but they seem to be quite comfortable in most respects with the natural and historical suggestions for its claims. I am happy for them, but I hope that their position does not cause them to trump brotherly love or charity in thought or words. When they write on these topics, they are too quick to cite each other or to refer to 40-year-old studies, and slow to consider the newer findings in the mainstream scientific literature.”
    ie. Many of the so-called scientific claims of many creationists simply do not make sense to Rice. Furthermore they quote each other and look to outdated experiments instead of more recent research.

    Quote 3
    “Based upon my faith in the Scriptures, I do believe (yes, faith and belief go beyond scientific evidence for this scientist) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that dwell therein, including a man named Adam and a woman named Eve. As for many of the details and the time-spans, I personally become less clear. Some may ask, What’s “less clear” about the text that reads, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth”? That is a fair question, and I wish I had an answer that would satisfy them. But I do not because I remain less clear.”
    ie. He is a Christian, but this is an entirely faith based conclusion, not science. Furthermore he has serious doubts regarding the age of a ‘Young’ Earth and a literal translation of the Bible.

    The video clip has some interesting facts but has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Why have you posted it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: