Tag Archives: natural selection

THE FORMULA FOR EVOLUTIONARY STORYTELLING

Natural Selection + Homology – Designer = Macro Evolution (Exclude mutation from this formula) Generally macro evolutionary stories have the following elements. Natural selection is used to represent the full process of evolution, homology helps create the evolutionary sequence, and then the idea that a designer wouldn’t create the feature being examined is used to give credence to natural selection and homology. Meanwhile, mutation is usually left out of the story because it falsifies, contradicts or complicates the storyline. HOMOLOGY

EVOLUTIONARY SLEIGHT OF HAND

In evolutionary stories you are often directed to a particular speculation that seems to be supported by science and seems to confirm the accumulation of many unseen evolutionary changes. The focus is drawn to something that looks as if it could have evolved.  But you need to think about what it is they are not looking at and what they bypass and what they assume in order to make the story sound plausible.  In most cases it is not that

EVOLUTION: STARRING NATURAL SELECTION

“In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term.” Charles Darwin Natural selection is the star of the evolutionary process. How often is natural selection given exclusive credit for a presumed evolutionary advance in biotechnology?  Meanwhile, mutation, its silent partner with the bad reputation, the one that did all the design work, misses another opportunity for stardom.  Even Darwin was aware that natural selection wasn’t capable of causing anything without variation.  Consider the following

THE CONVERGENCE CONCOCTION

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but it’s not a duck, it’s probably another case of convergent evolution Generally, the assumed transitions in the evolutionary story do not require a scientific explanation. Evolution is assumed to be responsible for every feature of every organism that ever existed. The key to defining an evolutionary ancestral relationship is usually similarity of structure. The differences are assumed to be the result of evolution. Quite often however things may

COMPLEXITY AND SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY

Specified complexity exists in only two places, life and things designed by life. This fact is supported by many observations and experiments that started centuries ago and continue in top science labs today. Complexity is a relative term. Technically, by definition something becomes complex as soon as it has more than two parts. But complexity for us is based on two things, the amount of data there is to consider and also our familiarity with what we are considering. The

ERRORS IN EVOLUTIONARY THINKING

This is a list of some of the mistaken ideas that are used in evolutionary thinking.   1. Similarity is evidence for ancestral relationships. When used as evidence for evolution it becomes circular reasoning. Similarities can have two origins, design or ancestry. If the relationship is ancestral then similarities would be due to common ancestry, but if similarities are from a designer using the same or similar structures, then similarity is evidence of a common designer. Another problem is that

THE TRUE ROLE OF NATURAL SELECTION AND VARIATION

As evolutionists often see it, natural selection is the primary force behind evolution. It has great creative powers, the ability to test, experiment, augment and modify. Its decisions are genius, brilliant and powerful. This makes natural selection one of the most abused concepts in evolutionary thinking. Take a look at just a few examples of how it is treated from evolutionary sources. “But if humans can make new varieties of plants and animals, must not nature do so also… If