"We observe evolution today (small changes). Given enough time, this would yield large changes." (Claim #E311)
Evolutionists try to confuse people by using different meanings of the word “evolution.” Sometimes they use it to mean “change,” and we certainly see change today, but no creationist disagrees with that. Creationists believe that the type of change we observe today is not the same type that could turn molecules into man. 1
Most of the “examples of evolution” fall under two categories:
- Built-in genetic information. 2 3 4 Examples in this category create no new information at all, but rather, use existing genetic information. In these examples, genetic “switches” are simply turned on or off.
- De-evolution. In these cases, the “change” makes the animal worse-off overall (for example, like cave fish “evolving” blindness). Since these examples demonstrate destruction, they demonstrate the exact opposite type of change needed to turn molecules into man.
- Blind cave fish
- Cane Toads
- Darwin’s Finches
- Dog breeds
- E. coli
- Fruit flies
- Italian Wall Lizards
- Lactose Tolerance
- Mussel Shell
- Peppered Moth
- Three-Toed Skink
Site Under Construction
This site is still under construction. It needs more references, citations, and debate arguments. If you would like to help, please view the community page.
Sarfati, J. D., & Matthews, M. (1999). Refuting Evolution. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking.
- Sarfati, 1999, p. 31 ↩
- Coyne, 2009, p. 117: “Three things are involved in creating an adaption by natural selection. First, the starting population has to be variable: mice within a population have to show some difference in their coat colors. Otherwise the trait cannot evolve. In the case of mice, we know this is true because mice within mainland populations show some variability in coat color.” ↩
- Coyne, 2009, p. 117: “Adaption to the environment is inevitable if a species has the right kind of genetic variation.” ↩
- Sarfati, 1999, p. 33: “No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden recessive alleles coming together.” ↩