I find it amazing when people make comments without checking the accuracy or the logic of their comments first. It is also obvious that they have not been following Creation Revolution’s articles for very long or they would have seen the answers to some of their comments. This week, I will respond to two comments left concerning the article Modern Horses Disprove Evolution and one comment on Trial of the Century left by one of the same persons who commented on the first article.
Comment to:Modern Horses Disprove Evolution
From Joe M:
Soooo, do you people have a good laugh when you write stuff like this? Have you never read Darwin’s “Origin of Species”? Or do you simply ignore it for the benefit of your gullible audience? If you had read it, you’d be aware of the concept of artificial selection, as discussed in the first several chapters.
The existence of these two extremes in size in individuals of THE SAME SPECIES is the result of intentional selective breeding by humans, just as is done with dogs, cats, rabbits, pigeons, various plants, etc. It has nothing to do with evolution through natural selection, which selects beneficial characteristics created by accidental genetic changes and mutations that occur naturally.
The selections made to create the two individuals shown here were not intended to create a new species; only two breeds of the same species. The premise of your argument against evolution is, as always, invalid. Too bad your readership doesn’t get it. (Or maybe they do, and continue to subscribe just to see what moronic tripe you’ll publish next.)
Joe, thank you for your comments which will allow me to elaborate more on the fallacy of the horse evolution series that has long been used as proof of evolution. And to answer your question, not only have I read Origin of Species, but I’ve read everything Darwin wrote, have you? I have also studied evolution for over 40 years and have yet to see any scientific evidence to support it, only religiously held interpretations of the facts.
There has been a great deal of study conducted on horse evolution. Due to some of those studies, many textbooks and evolutionists have stopped using horses as proof of evolution.
While I was pursuing my Master’s Degree in biology, I had the opportunity to meet a fellow student, John Rajca, who have been doing his Master’s research on horse evolution. He had printed out life size images of the various horse ancestors’ skulls. He then placed them along a timeline of their supposed evolutionary existence. What he discovered was the size of horse skulls jumped all over the place. There were small skulls giving rise to large skulls which gave rise to medium skulls back to large skulls back to small skulls and so on. There was nothing that resembled the textbook progression of small to medium to large horses.
He also mapped out the toe structure like he did the skulls and ended up with the same results of toe structure as he had found on the size of the skulls. Again, there was no smooth progression from three toes to two toes to one toe.
What John discovered was the textbook charts of the smooth progression in size and toe structure conveniently excluded those individuals that did not fit into their preconceived ideology. The evolutionary model of horse evolution was based on a pick and chose or should I say pick and omit progressionary chart.
Here are some additional articles for you to read that will reveal other studies that have clearly demonstrated the fallacy of the horse evolutionary model:
From Jack P:
“This variation has nothing to do with evolution” is a statement made in abject ignorance. The variations within a species is exactly due to evolutionary forces. Albeit, some of these “variations” are due to selective breeding. But how does “creationism” account for variation in selective breeding? If God made a species of horse, how can mere mortals change his design?
Jack, thank you for your comment concerning variation within a kind. I trust you are relatively new to our website as you do not seem to be aware of the articles that we have posted that deals with variations within a kind or type of animal. I will provide links to those articles at the end of this response.
You ask how creationism allows for variation in selective breeding. The answer is easy. When God created each ‘kind’ of animal, does it not make sense that He would have created them with a large amount genetic variation? Knowing that they would spread out and adapt to a variety of different environments and climates, they would have needed a high degree of variability to allow them to survive.
An example would be the dog or wolf created kind. When God created them, He gave them variations on fur length and density. Those animals with longer and denser coats would have survived better in colder regions and thus pass those traits on to their offspring. On the obverse, those animals with longer and denser coats that moved into hotter regions would have had a greater chance of over heating resulting in a lesser chance of surviving and passing on their traits for long and dense coats to any offspring. Over time, you find wolves with long dense coats living in the northern colder areas and coyotes and dingoes with shorter less dense fur living in the hotter more arid regions. Since they can still interbreed, we know they are the same created kind.
Variation within a kind and speciation both fit very nicely into a creationist model. What you fail to realize is that it does not fit into the evolutionary model. Evolution is built on the premise that there is an ever increasing amount of new genetic information building in evolving plants and animals. Yet what we see is an ever decreasing amount of genetic information and variation throughout the plant and animal kingdoms.
For more information, please check out the following articles:
Comment to: Trial of the Century
From Jack P:
Accepting anything on “faith” in defiance of a huge body of self-consistent evidence is by definition “ignorance”. The more ‘creationists” try to “patch-up” their ideology the more they display their lack of reason and understanding of the universe around them. This refusal of acceptance of the truth can lead very dangerous things like the election of Obama to an office he is neither fit nor qualified to hold.
Jack, in both of these comments you use the term ‘ignorance’ in referring to our posts. With all of the Christian kindness intended, I feel led to point out that the ignorance is on your end and that it is fed by your blind faith in the religion of evolution.
In your closing remark, you equate the danger of believing in creationism leading to the election of Obama. In fact, if you had watched any of the election results and demographics you would have clearly seen that the opposite was true. Creationists are conservative in their political views while many evolutionists tend to be more liberal. It was the liberals that voted in Obama, not the conservatives.
I sincerely suggest that you do more research on both sides of the issue before you make your comments and accusations. In my own defense, I spend the vast majority of my time reading and studying evolutionary material so that I know what they say and how to respond to them. May I suggest you do the same in the future and spend some time actually studying both sides of the issue before you make your comments and accusations?
This book answers more than 60 questions, including:
Does God Exist
Six Days? Really?
What about the Gap Theory?
What About Carbon Dating?
How can we see distant stars in a young universe?
How did bad things come about?
What about arguments for evolution?
Who was Cains wife?
Were the sons of God and/or the nephilim extra-terrestrials?
Was the Flood global?
What about continental drift?
Noahs Floodwhat about all that water?
How did the animals fit on Noahs Ark?
How did fresh and saltwater fish survive the flood?
What about the Ice Age? And more!