Evolution Debate Continues



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.

Peter Greer

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.


jeff durbin 3 years, 8 months ago

Atheist Definition: An educated person who believes that in the beginning, there was nothing and nothing created everything during an explosion called the “big bang”. There was no cause for this explosion, it simply happened without purpose. Out of this explosion of nothing, planets and the earth was randomly formed without design or designer. Over billions of years, these elements came together and formed simple life forms, these slowly developed in to complex life forms. Life started in a primordial soup and that life organism randomly evolved into plants and animals. Overtime an apelike creature evolved from a small rat-like creature and later evolved into modern man. There is no difference between man and animals, and in essence, man came from the same life form that plants evolved from.
Morals are determined by each individual person for everything is relative. There is no God or intelligent designer; we are all products of random chance, birth defects that were beneficial, long term evolution and the Big Bang. The only hope for modern man is socialism and everything should belong to the State for common distribution. An Atheist decides truth for themselves, re-defines morality and wants to kill God and anyone who believes in God. An atheist believes that they are made of atoms from stardust but never recognize the awesome design like how humans have individual thumbprints or the complexity of DNA or the substance and value of life. They call this belief or faith “science” and fail to recognize they have no observable and repeatable science only Marxist ideology. Evolution is not a theory actually, it is a humanistic philosophy. A theory should be based upon observable, repeatable evidence there is no observable evidence for evolution (one kind into another kind).

There is evidence for slight adaption and minor variation, but one kind has never evolved into another kind. A dinosaur did not evolve into a whale or a bird. An ape like creature did not evolve in to a human. A raccoon-like creature did not evolve into modern cats and dogs. My great, great grandmother was not a rat-like creature that evolved into an apelike creature that slowly evolved over millions of years in to a modern woman.


jeff durbin 3 years, 8 months ago

If the Editor is convinced that we simply evolved from simple organisms over millions of years, it should be easy to prove to someone like me. I suggest publishing over time the original Darwin’s “Origin of Species” in your paper, the copyright is expired and now is public domain. Write your commentary upon his information or any other evolutionist. Educate us on the correct evolutional process and provide the evidence, not drawings and ideas. Back up your reputation with modern repeatable and observable science, the fossil record and DNA. Show us how birth defects, random selection, mutations and the method that DNA has accepted these chance changes and has improved over millions of years. How an ape lost a chromosome and became human, yet we are not interfertile. Why a butterfly has 60 chromosomes but lost 36 chromosomes to become an apelike creature and now we only have 23.

How asexual creatures became sexual. How life came from non-life. How simple are the single-celled organisms and how they mutated into complex life forms over millions of years. I really need to understand these issues for I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary. I am pretty sure that a potato and a dog are not related. I am sure you will be greatly praised for your endeavor.

But for me and a few others, we have seen and evaluated evolution’s evidence and the choice is easy. For God’s invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.

Jeff Durbin Thoroughly trained and indoctrinated in evolution, but found out there is no evidence, it is fantasy. A fantasy we are wrongly continuing in our taxpayer support public septic system called public education.


don evans 3 years, 8 months ago

All I know is that all life forms here on terra firma, are uniquely individual. Humans have DNA, genetic features, unique physical appearance and characters. If life was not created by intelligent design to be unique individuals, what would be the chance of all that uniqueness happening only through a exclusive evolutionary process? I submit if that were true, all life forms would be just generational clones of the first ones out of the soup, much like insects. Nature always seeks the most efficient way of creating life. It would never consider individual identity outcome as being efficient mass production of life species. But for human kind, what other species of life has total free will to choose what it will. Not just having to rely on a specific compelling trait or animal instinct. That my friends, is the unique design gift of a far superior intellect. I choose to call that God, and I am great full for it everyday.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.