A tongue-in-cheek title for me to post this here.... who else likes finding nice reasonable scientific (preferably from non-Christian sources) evidence that evolution is complete baloney?

Here's a wonderful piece to start us off called "The End of Evolution" by Fred Reed.

*waves hand* ME!! I've posted several memes on Facebook ripping evolution to shreds. Like this one

I know my input here is somewhat late (I'm new to this forum.), but I would like to respectfully inquire as to why creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive.

Legatus Christo, I tried to click your evidence, but the message said that the content cannot be found.

Constable Mimetes, I have read the evidence you have provided, and I'm quite convinced that the author does not understand a few basic tenets of evolution, especially in his subheading "If It Looks Like a Duck, It Must Have Descended from a Duck." Reed claims that natural selection is not a valid principle because humans have already, I would say, artificially selected preferable traits in beings and objects, whether it be for domesticated animals or automobiles, but it appears that he does not understand the principle of genetics, particularly genetic mutations. I don't claim to be a geneticist, but I understand that a simple mutation in a single gene can have monumental impacts on a species, especially if the environment is favorable for the individual animal.

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey contains the example of the polar bear, which was originally the result of a genetic mutation in the brown bear species. Since its white fur allowed it to have a suitable camouflage in polar climates, its offspring was naturally selected by their environment to survive, while the brown bears died off. Evolution does not happen on an individual level, but throughout generations of a species. As a result, there is a stark difference between artificial and natural selection; both ideas are plausible and applicable.

With all due respect, I don't think it's enough to include evidence from people who are not scientists or are not exceedingly knowledgeable in the field, much less someone like Fred Reed. I have a friend who is majoring in biology, minoring in chemistry, is a Christian, and gives much credence to evolution. If we as Christians want to make our writing scientifically accurate with biblical undertones, it would be more reasonable to employ the current pope's stance on evolution and creationism, even as controversial as his beliefs may be. He believes that God is the Creator of the universe and that he oversees the natural processes in life, including evolution. It would be wise to reevaluate our sources, even for the sake of fiction--especially for the sake of science fiction.

Hey Regina,

Would you not give me that what you have described (and what ANY and EVERY evolutionist always uses as real-life examples of evolution...ie, MICROevolution) is merely and simply an expression of the vast genetic potential that exists within every species adapting in various ways to different environments?
But suppose for a moment that such variations within species are indeed caused by mutations, rather than hitherto unseen genetic potential being uncovered, what then? They are still mutations WITHIN species.

What the hypothesis of evolution does is extrapolation. From everything that we see of species mutating (if they are actually true mutations) and adapting to various environments for their best survival, there is not ONE solid proof that these changes have differentiated one species into a fundamentally different species. Not one.

Microevolution is a proven fact that no one should or can logically dispute. However, it is the application of the principle of microevolution to a framework of millions of years that gives a sense of logicality to the hypothesis of MACROevolution. But as has repeatedly been demonstrated in the scientific/genetic/ and archeological fields, there is absolutely no solid proof that such a hypothesis is true.

Simply because species carry the genetic potential to adapt to multiple and quite varying environments (microevolution, aka natural selection) does not in any way mean that upward evolutionary progression (from simple to complex) has any foundation at all. Nor does it support the idea of a simple, common ancestor.

There is a fundamental and DISTINCT difference between the two forms of evolution. One is a theory, the other is a completely unsupported hypothesis.

Areth,

Karthmin

I would also respectfully add to Karthmin's words that evolution simply doesn't fit into Genesis. For if you were to place millions of years of death before Adam, then what consequence is there to his sin in the garden? Death would be natural, and Jesus' death would amount to nothing!

Uh, EVERYONE.

Thanks!