Evolution has never become a law like the Law of Gravity and the Law of Thermodynamics, which were discovered by great men of science who strongly believed in a Creator. Evolution cannot claim that science supports it because Christians who are deeply involved in the different fields of science also use the same evidence that they have. Christians just explain the evidence in light of a Creator. I had a Japanese student who told me that evolution was taught in Japan as if it was a fact, so she was surprised when I explained to her the other side of the story that wasn't explained to them.
Well, evolution is a fact, scientifically speaking it is considered a fact. A scientific theory will never become a law. Most Christians actually accept evolution.
Well, I agree that some Christians accept evolution. I, for one, accept evolution, but it's not the evolution that you accept. Knowledgeable Christians accept microevolution and not macro. Let me explain. Microevolution tells us that some changes, small to be exact, happen to species. These are also called genetic mutations. But it's not what the theory of evolution claims to be. The one that school teaches is macroevolution which has never been proven by observable science.
Have you ever observed a frog becoming a bird? Or a chicken becoming a dinosaur? Or at least some species that move into that direction?
Well... You do not accept the theory of evolution then. Everybody accepts as you called it - microevolution because that is fact. There are no single creationist that I know of that does not accept as you have called it microevolution.
Microevolution is not based on mutations. Well it could be based on mutations on some level, some of the case, but most of time it is only based on selection - either by purposeful breeding or natural selection of existing sets of traits within the genome pool, because mutations carrying new informations have not been yet observed - there were only mutations that deleted the existing barriers.
Microevolution should not be called evolution because it is an adaption. Why not call it adaptation?
Or call it "change."
I'm not saying that evolution has been proven to NOT exist. All I am saying is that
standard evolutionists ARE proving that it doesn't. I mean... all these mountains of evidences for, and yet no proof of.
Evolution is a hoax.
Yeah. Its highely unlikely that mutations had made new species. Because everything I know of suggest mutations take away information. For example a blue eyes is not a special gene - it is a mutation of lacking enough melanine in the eye. It took away information and not make something new. That is the same with white skin colour that lacks a colouring agent and not being a white colour agent.
The variation of the colour of the skin in humans is only based on one colour - brown. The same with eyes and hair. The hair are naturally white, unless they are browny coloured by melanine. The same with the eye without a melanine it is blue with a little melanine it is green and with a lot of melanine it is brown.
Darwin was calling white race superiourly evolved, but in some case - in this case melanine they degenerated by mutations. Thats all that happened. Maybe blacks have mutated in some other way but, none got better we all got worse it seems. The size of the brain suggest that compared to some old skulls.
Unless there is a stupidity gene or unglyness gene or rudeness gene we will not mutate for the better it all suggests.
Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000)
)