I thought I’d take a moment to bring (those of us that are professing Christians) back to the point that,
regardless of what you believe about creation, you are a Christian by faith professed in the one true Lord. This, I hope, frees us up to have a good solid, nontoxic discussion that won’t get us all banned
. I haven’t read any toxic posts yet, but just a reminder here.
To put it very simply, the general idea behind what 1Tonne and I believe (and what Ray Comfort is attempting to say), is that despite the vast physiological differences between, say, a chihuahua and a Great Dane, they are at heart both dogs, along with wolves, dingoes and foxes, and if you wanted to you could take wolves and recreate Great Danes from scratch.
The interesting part about this is that speciation always involves a loss of available traits. People breeding Great Danes keep the tall dogs and get rid of the short ones (equivalent to dogs with certain traits dying in a natural setting due to lack of correct features). Then, eventually the population will never be able to produce short dogs ever again. Wolves have all the DNA necessary for both Danes and Chihuahuas, but Danes cannot ever become chihuahuas because they lack the DNA, and have less
DNA information overall than wolves.
The base idea of evolution is that creatures speciate through the means of natural selection, becoming better suited to their environments and acquiring new features.
The last part is important.
To get terms straight so that what I’m saying is not misinterpreted:
Natural selection: certain traits thrive and others die off, removing themselves from the gene pool. A net loss of genetic information. This theory was actually published in a scientific paper thirty years before Darwin’s time, by a young-earth creationist. Darwin also piggybacked off his own grandfather‘s work when he published “his own“ theory.
Evolution: through the engine of natural selection creatures lose some traits and acquire others through genetic mutation, becoming better suited to their environments over time. A net gain of genetic information. The original idea has been around since the Greeks, but has been popularized with immense success in modern days, starting with Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, and others.
Darwinist evolution: an old term, which describes the concepts Darwin briefly penned about on his trips to the Galapagos, fleshed out slightly more in his Origin of Species, and worked on extensively during his work on barnacles, which were actually the prime focus of his relative studies. Believe it or not, Darwin actually misidentified
the so-called Darwin’s finches, and had to be corrected by a bird expert back in England. He also forgot to record where most of them came from, making them useless for study. Darwin also did not understand modern genetics, as evidenced by his writings in Origin of Species. In reality, very little of true darwinistic evolution survives today.
Darwinism: a modern term, used to describe the idea of evolution as a whole without meaning a specific part. This is confusing, as it can also mean a belief in the ideas of Darwin, which is not in line with how the term is used today.
Now, onto my summary and thesis.
Despite modern technology, a genetic mutation that creates
new information has never
been recorded. Although the human race experiences thousands of mutation collectively every year, they are exclusively
negative or harmless, and always involve a net loss of DNA. So, if it cannot be proven that even one mutation has occurred which created a new gene, and not a clone or mangling of another, then the idea of evolution falls apart, because evolution requires a net gain of information
. I.e. I have more genetic information than a sea urchin, and am general consisted to be a more “evolved creature”.
Observational science would mandate that humanity is indeed experiencing natural selection, but that we are actually devolving, as we lose genes every year and gain none. For example, every case of cancer is a genetic mutation gone horribly wrong, when certain cells self-replicating features are severely impaired, and the cancerous cells replicate uncontrollably. (There are a few other obscure typings of cancer, but this is by far the most common)
The reason behind this is that most mutations are caused by rogue toxins, poisons, and the various rays and waves literally scrambling DNA. An extremely small percentage are caused by cells mis-replicating DNA for the same effect, but this is relatively rare.
This leaves the big question: Where on earth are the positive mutations?