1133 Shares

Is evolution not linear. but to a great extent by random chance? Are evolutionists Mute-ant on this?

Is evolution not linear. but to a great extent by random chance? Are evolutionists Mute-ant on this? Topic: A hypothesis is well supported when
July 17, 2019 / By Barret
Question: . Isn't Evolutionary Hypotheses the Real Straw man argument? Gods creations show purpose, diversity and complexity by the design of all life. It is well proven and is quite agreed upon when seeing creation from a scientific view as well as a personal view. The percentage of helpful mutations in comparison to diversity of all biologic life ,does not support the Hypotheses for evolutionary success from mutation.Yet they grasp at straws trying to explain it, and is a point of contention among all those who wish to believe it. Creation shows Reason...Order..and .Adaptation. Which is highly provable in all science endeavor.As well as agreed upon. . ☼ SSF.... Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it selects only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased. ☼
Best Answer

Best Answers: Is evolution not linear. but to a great extent by random chance? Are evolutionists Mute-ant on this?

Yolanda Yolanda | 7 days ago
The LORD God created all, has all knowledge and without Him we could not live. Evolution offers nothing to anyone - and certainly is mute.
👍 222 | 👎 7
Did you like the answer? Is evolution not linear. but to a great extent by random chance? Are evolutionists Mute-ant on this? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: A hypothesis is well supported when


Yolanda Originally Answered: Evolutionists, about the evolution of giraffes.?
I tried to research this but it turns out that the giraffe is problematic to many evolutionists. Here's my speculation and since no one seems to REALLY know... It's probably comparable to any other speculation. Yes giraffes necks grew to reach taller and taller branches. This was necessary in the areas where the giraffes live because there is no competition for the higher branches. There is a secondary purpose as well though. Giraffes with short necks are essentially prey. They are no threat and will be picked of like gazelle. Because giraffes don't travel in groups they either A) begin traveling in groups as gazelle and zebra do or B) they evolve. I realize this is not done on purpose but the mechanisms of nature are put to work and... tada! Usually drastic changes like these are seen in situations were isolation is present. On an island things will evolve very quickly and in odd ways because mutations are enhanced dramatically when the breeding pool is limited. This MAY apply to the giraffe I just can't see how. Giraffes inhabit Africa and Asia and with those being two large continents, I cannot see how isolation would have shaped these animals. Little seems to be known about their evolution, however, so this sort of mechanism may be possible.

Sheena Sheena
Evolution is driven by change. If there's no change, organisms will evolve to a certain point and then stop evolving. So we have some creatures that have evolved noticeably in the last few thousand years, but others that haven't changed in tens of millions of years, Like crocodiles. They were around when the dinosaurs lived and they still look about the same, because their habitat hasn't changed much. There's a theory called 'punctuated equilibrium' that helps explain this. Suppose you have a herd of animals that live on a plain. They evolve to match the conditions--the climate, the available food, the predators, the diseases, etc. etc. After a while, maybe a million years, they have evolved to match the conditions as well as possible so they no longer evolve. Then it gets crowded and part of the herd climbs over a mountain pass in search of new fields. The place they find is a little different. Not so different that they can't live there, but different enough to cause more evolution. There might be a faster predator, favoring faster animals, so over several generations the faster ones have an advantage in reproduction. There might be different bacteria so those who are immune to that bacteria have an advantage. It might be colder so those with longer fur have an advantage. So after another few thousand years they have evolved into a different species, even though the original herd hasn't changed. I bet you didn't know that originally the creation theory insisted that new species can't be created, and also that old species couldn't go extinct! Because if either of these happened, that meant creation wasn't finished after 6 days. Extinctions are hard to argue with, so the creation theory gave them up about 200 years ago.
👍 90 | 👎 -1

Paula Paula
I'm not sure you're entirely in command of the term "Straw Man argument", but that's not really the point I suppose... "Gods creations show purpose, diversity and complexity by the design of all life. It is well proven and is quite agreed upon when seeing creation from a scientific view as well as a personal view." Ya see, you made that up. You are lying.
👍 84 | 👎 -9

Marian Marian
So the fact that thousands of babies are stillborn or spontaneously abort, because of harmful mutations, for every baby born with some useful mutation, that can get passed on to future generations, proves an intelligent creator? Evolution is a wasteful, cruel, heartless and mindless process that runs on pain and death. We see lots of pain and death, but we don't see any creation going on. -- Regards, John Popelish
👍 78 | 👎 -17

Kodey Kodey
You would be right if evolution worked by mutation alone. But you left out the other half of the theory: natural selection, the process by which unfit mutations get weeded out. Nice try, but still fail.
👍 72 | 👎 -25

Jasmyn Jasmyn
a straw man argument is what creationist do by adding things to the theory of evolution and using their additions to attack the theory evolution is when animals adapt to their environment. that's it. Over a period of time an isolated community of a species can evolve to the point that they are there own unique species does happen and cause of evolution but its not part of the theory
👍 66 | 👎 -33

Jasmyn Originally Answered: Evolutionists, why are there scientists on both sides of the evolution debate?
Atheists found out that Darwin based his whole THEORY of evolution on the Islands of the Galapagos. There are different animals on all the continents, many of whom are not in the areas he studied. Evolutionists can ridicule all they want (it’s all they have left), but they can’t prove that inorganic matter evolved into organic matter that evolved into the complex life forms we are and see around us. Evolutionists can’t get from atoms to people. It’s even worse for them since they can’t account for the original matter or the organized information necessary to organize the matter. To believe in evolution is to believe in magic — literally. At least stage and street magicians start with a deck of cards, a coin, or a rabbit. Magicians can’t really make something appear out of thin air. But that’s exactly what evolutionists claim for evolution. When I say exactly, I mean exactly. Here’s an example found in the prestigious Scientific American: “It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”[1] It’s impossible to imagine because it’s impossible, but that’s what evolutionists believe. One of the first scientific truths a biology student learns is that spontaneous generation is not science, and yet in order to be an evolutionist, you must believe in it even though it’s contrary to logic, experience, and experimentation. Did you notice that the authors describe cells as “machines”? When has a machine ever spontaneously come into existence? Never! “But there was this time 3.7 billion years ago. . . .” Helmuth writes, “Whatever levels of analysis you care to use, from molecular to planetary, they all mutually reinforce the discovery that all living things evolve through a process of natural selection. Absolutely nothing in the 154 years since Origin was published has undermined the theory.” “Absolutely nothing”? Do I detect a hint of desperation and fear? OK, like you, I started with the molecular. Using observation (no one was around 3.7 billion years ago and no one has seen nothing become something) and experimentation (no one has been able to produce life in the lab), demonstrate to us how evolution took place. Don’t theorize. Don’t assert. Don’t propagandize. Show us. You can’t and neither can Richard Dawkins or any other evolutionist living or dead.

If you have your own answer to the question a hypothesis is well supported when, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.