I would like all readers to know that the editor was quick to respond to my questions about Tuesday’s (4/2/13) mix up. I appreciate the fact that he will allow an open discussion so people can see the view from both sides.
That brings me to comment on the notes attached to my letter titled “Evidence for evolution lacking.” I agree concerning the arbitrary nature of deciding on new species and I would like to point out that I did not use that term even once in my letter. To clarify where the biblical kind would fit, think of the family level. So my contention is not that no new species are formed but that we have never observed one family of organisms becoming another family.
The use of the term evolution is sometimes misleading in your comments. If you could call changes of traits within a kind adaptation, and the development of new kinds evolution, it would clarify the picture. I have never questioned adaptation. It is observable. You called this evolution when you referred to dogs and finches. For clarity these changes should be referred to as adaptation. Neither of these animals has ever been observed to give rise to a new kind of animal.
The finches’ data shows that their bills change with their food source, which is believed to be driven by moisture amounts. The bills have fluctuated back and forth around the mean of bill size for the 200 years they have been observed. So there is no evolution in the microbe to man sense.
Since cross breeding and genetic manipulation both involve an outside intelligent source they are not clear examples of what could happen naturally. In your article in the 4/2/13 Roundup you expressed your belief that you and your dog have descended from a common ancestor. The only way that the time elapsed from diversifying from a common ancestor would even be attempted is if you have that belief in place. For those of us that hold to the special creation of man we simply see a difference in the DNA of the two kinds. Most of the differences were placed there by God in the beginning and some have come about by adaptation and mutation since the fall of man in the garden.
The part of the cell theory that says that cells come only from existing cells is the part I see that evolution must contradict.
The mechanism for changing one kind (family) of organisms into another is still missing, there is no explanation for the beginning of life, any tree of life that can be drawn up can only be inferred from the fossil record. In other words, those who adhere to the idea that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the correct explanation for the beginnings of life and the development of life on the earth do so by faith in the unseen. This is no different from my faith in the beginning of life that is taken from the Bible. I have yet to see why they are not both religious views when faith is involved in both.
I have cited the RATE Project in previous letters and I cite it again as research done by Ph.D. scientists with 1,500 pages of data and conclusions. This was all based on testable assumptions by creationists, so please don’t say that creationists cannot perform testable observations because this research shows that assertion is not true. This meets all the criteria mentioned by you and others for being considered scientific. That is why creationism should also be considered scientific.
Editor’s note: So you acknowledge that the shape of finches’ bills changes due to genetic shifts driven by factors in the environment. But since in the 200 years we’ve been watching, no finches have turned into bats, evolution doesn’t exist. You acknowledge that selective breeding creates dramatic changes in the form and function of animals, plants and whatnot — but since we’re doing the cross breeding it doesn’t count. That’s like saying we have maintained stream gauges on the Colorado River for a century and the canyon hasn’t gotten any deeper — so it must have been created in a weekend by a miraculous flood. The change in the bills of the finches and the breeds of dogs proves the mechanism. Add time and you’ve got evolution. Evolution doesn’t rely on faith at all — that’s why it’s a scientific theory.