Evolutionists are proclaiming that evolution has been proven. They are proclaiming that it is no longer a theory – it is fact. Magicians proclaim what they are doing is real and true – do you believe them?
Sleight of hand
Evolutionists work their prestidigitation using words. The following is a definition of evolution from the University of California Museum of Paleontology:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
Magicians will manipulate objects (cards, coins, etc.) in order to obtain the desired effect. Evolutionists manipulate their “simple” definition by creating two meanings. They separate the meaning into “small-scale” and “large-scale” evolution.
The flourish
Before performing the actual trick, magicians will perform what is called the flourish – an intentional display of skills, such as card fanning, one handed cuts, and spreads. Evolutionists excel at performing the flourish. They have created whole species from a single tooth, inundated the text books with artistic renditions of evolution, and touted that they have all the facts.
The facts they give are all examples of changes within a species (i.e. beak changes in finches, pattern changes on moths, etc.). These facts are all referring to the first (small-scale) meaning of evolution. Creationists have no issues with changes within a species – called adaptation.
Misdirection
Here is where you have to keep focus in order not to fall for the trick. Once they have presented their proof for evolution (don’t forget the proof is for small-scale), they change the meaning. Since they just proved “evolution” is true, changes from one species to another (large-scale or macro-evolution) must be true.
The Reveal
The truth is that both creationists and evolutions have the same set of facts. It is their interpretations of those facts that are different. They each see the facts through their own world views, which lead them down two separate paths to their ultimate conclusions. Facts do support changes within a species, which creationists have no problem accepting. But, the facts are not there to support large-scale (changing from one species to another) evolution. Evolution can only choose from what is already there – it cannot create new, more complex, species.
Resources:
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Evolution or Adaptation?
Hopi Hoekstra, et al., A Single Amino Acid Mutation Contributes to Adaptive Beach Mouse Color Pattern, Science 313:101–104, 2006
Human “evolution” … or adaptation? August 2, 2006
Understanding Evolution. 2010. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 22 August 2008
Comments
What you're discussing here is a matter of perspective and scale. Who is to say what is a small or large difference? What is your method of determining the measurement of difference between a shift in a finch's beak versus a change in species? Keep in mind that the latter does not happen in an instant. Rather, many of the small scale shifts you believe happen occur over a long period of time, eventually resulting in a separate species. You are nullifying your own argument.
You'll need to work a little harder and come up with a more effective argument to convince us that the honest work these scientists do can be boiled down to a mere parlor trick. I respectfully suggest that you engage in some honest research on your own and try this again.
Katie there are technical definitions of a species. As of yet there is no evidence to prove that these minor variation that create subcategories within a species has ever taken a step into a new species. In Darwin's book The Origin of Species he illustrates evolution with the tree of life. The tree of life has undergone several changes since then but still has no evidence to support it. The evidence points to several different species springing up at once, more like blades of grass in a lawn. Your comment only shows that the parlor trick Mr. Detherow pointed out, are working.
One thing he didn't talk about is the several scientist who end up being shunned for exploring alternative theories. What happens to the honest work these scientist do? Honest scientist admit macro-evolution is only a theory, to spin it any other way goes beyond the facts of the evidence.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!