Changes

Evolution (view source)

Revision as of 04:02, November 13, 2026

4 bytes removed , Yesterday at 04:02

Proofread words 1-2000

Line 1: Line 1:

[[File:Evolution.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Late in [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin's]] life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the [[Intelligent design|result of design]].<ref>[https://electricscotland.com/history/glasgow/anec305.htm The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Darwin - As told in Glasgow]</ref> See also: [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists] ]]

[[File:Alfredwallace.jpg|alt=evolution darwin theory|right|thumb|201px|Alfred Russel Wallace is the co-discoverer of [[natural selection]] along with Charles Darwin. He eventually came to hold a view that differed from Darwin in that higher intelligences were involved in the evolution of some species such as man.]]

−

The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''[[microevolution]]'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''[[macroevolution]]'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such a genetic drift.<ref>[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]</ref> Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]]. See also: [[Theistic evolution]].

+

The theory of '''evolution''' is a [[Naturalism|naturalistic]] [[theory]] of the [[history]] of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs [[methodological naturalism]] and is taught in schools and universities). In biology, evolution is understood as a process that results in changes in the genetic material of a population over time from adaptations of organisms to their environments. The study of evolution can be performed on different scales: ''[[microevolution]]'' reflects changes in DNA sequences and allele frequencies within a species over time (e.g. mutations, interbreeding), ''[[macroevolution]]'' reflects large-scale changes at the species level which result from the accumulation of numerous small changes on the microevolutionary scale. [[Natural selection]] is one commonly cited mechanism for driving evolution, but there are others such as genetic drift.<ref>[https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/evolution-78/ Evolution - Nature (Journal)]</ref> Currently, there are several [[theories of evolution]]. See also: [[Theistic evolution]].

−

Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.<ref>Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]</ref> His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.<ref name="wallacenat">Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: "The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species" (1855) and of course "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type" (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see "Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man" (1869)</ref> Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for a an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.<ref name="intelligent evolution">Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316</ref><ref>Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press</ref> Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.<ref>Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society

+

Evolution is often linked to Charles Darwin and [[natural selection]]. However, naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace was the co-discoverer of natural selection along with [[Charles Darwin]]. Wallace eventually came to believe that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution.<ref>Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. [https://archive.org/details/worldoflifemanif00walliala The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose]</ref> His works on natural selection were around in the 1850s and some works on the uniqueness of man occurred in the 1860s.<ref name="wallacenat">Alfred Russel Wallace. [https://wallace-online.org/converted/pdf/1895_NaturalSelection_S725%5B2d%5D.pdf Natural Selection and Tropical Nature: Essays on Descriptive and Theoretical Biology] important works on natural selection: "The Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species" (1855) and of course "On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type" (1858); on the the limits on natural selection and man see "Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man" (1869)</ref> Wallace's views challenge the Darwinian view of evolution and allow for an overlap between design, intelligence, purpose with natural selection and evolution.<ref name="intelligent evolution">Flannery, M.A. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Intelligent Evolution and Natural Theology. Religions 2020, 11, 316. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11060316</ref><ref>Flannery, Michael A. 2011. Alfred Russel Wallace’s Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, rev ed. Riesel: Erasmus Press</ref> Before 1864, Wallace also believed that man was a result of natural selection, but by 1869, Wallace had changed his view since he felt that natural selection was insufficient to craft man's features like rationality, and postulated that higher intelligences may have been involved in man's evolution.<ref>Malcolm Jay Kottler. [https://www.newdualism.org/papers/M.Kottler/Kottler-Isis1974.pdf Alfred Russel Wallace, the Origin of Man, and Spiritualism]. Isis, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 144-192 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/229369."In 1864 Wallace was firmly committed to the action of natural selection alone in the development of man. In 1869 he first expressed publicly his new point of view that natural selection was unable to explain the origin of man and that higher intelligences guiding man's development were required."</ref>

−

[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,<ref name="nat">Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.</ref> but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection is what is usually disputed.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]</ref><ref name="nat" />

+

[[Microevolution]] and natural selection are accepted to occur by all creationists,<ref name="nat">Numbers RL. Ironic Heresy: How Young-Earth Creationists Came to Embrace Rapid Microevolution by Means of Natural Selection. In: Lustig A, Richards RJ, Ruse M, eds. Darwinian Heresies. Cambridge University Press; 2004:84-100.</ref> but [[macroevolution]] and the limits of natural selection are what is usually disputed.<ref>[https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/?srsltid=AfmBOopLgbKLuo1T0WUtyPAE_oC6BsxXISw-TLyKw37AXTXDbMH77y-v Evolution - Answers in Genesis]</ref><ref name="nat" />

The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory or in the wild.<ref>

Line 12: Line 12:

*Paul McHugh, [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2477 The Weekly Standard, Teaching Darwin: Why we're still fighting about biology textbook. March 28, 2005]</ref> Dr. [[Nils Heribert-Nilsson]], Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in [[Sweden]] and a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."<ref>

*[http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_I/chapter6.html Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185

−

*[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]</ref> Current ongoing long term evolutionary experiments such as the experiment on E.coli bacteria which "exceed 63,000 generations, equivalent to over 1 million years of human evolution" have not shown speciation or novel functions in the organism.<ref>Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, Minnich SA.2016.Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol198:.https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00831-15</ref>

+

*[http://creation.com/gould-and-heribert-nilsson Quotes to note]</ref> Current ongoing long-term evolutionary experiments such as the experiment on E. coli bacteria which "exceed 63,000 generations, equivalent to over 1 million years of human evolution" have not shown speciation or novel functions in the organism.<ref>Van Hofwegen DJ, Hovde CJ, Minnich SA.2016.Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. J Bacteriol198:.https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.00831-15</ref>

The fossil record is often used as evidence in the [[creation]] versus evolution controversy. The [[fossil]] record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.<ref>

Line 19: Line 19:

* [http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html Quotes of Famous Evolutionist Regarding the Fossil Record]

* [http://creation.com/content/view/5654 Ediacaran ‘explosion’]

−

</ref> In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]</ref> Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]]."<ref>Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831</ref>

+

</ref> In 1981, there were at least a hundred million fossils that were cataloged and identified in the world's museums.<ref>[http://www.fossils.me/tag/darwinism Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129]</ref> Despite the large number of fossils available to scientists in 1981, evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at [[Oxford University]], was forced to confess: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or [[Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuationist]], uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to [[Creationism|special creation]]."<ref>Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831</ref>

In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidential, the great intellectuals in history such as [[Archimedes]], [[Aristotle]], [[St. Augustine]], [[Francis Bacon]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[Lord Kelvin]] did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.<ref>

Line 39: Line 39:

In 2024, the assistant to [[Russia]]n Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, former [[Chechen]] Prime Minister Muslim Khuchiev called for a ban on the teaching of Darwinian theory in schools at a meeting of the All-Russian Parents' Committee. "Everyone knows that this is an erroneous theory, it goes against [[religion]]. This is the first step, I believe, in the [[spiritual]] degradation of children."<ref>[https://meduza.io/news/2024/09/20/pomoschnik-mishustina-predlozhil-ubrat-teoriyu-darvina-iz-shkolnoy-programmy-ideyu-podderzhal-pravoslavnyy-oligarh-konstantin-malofeev Mishustin's assistant suggested removing Darwin's theory from the school curriculum. The idea was supported by the "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeev], Meduza, 20 September 2024. meduza.io</ref>

−

In 2011, the results of a study ~~was~~ published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class. <ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>

+

In 2011, the results of a study were published indicating that most [[United States]] high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/science/study-most-high-school-biology.html</ref> In addition, in 2011, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced into state legislatures within the United States encouraging students to employ [[critical thinking]] skills when examining the evolutionary [[paradigm]]. In 2009, there were seven states which required critical analysis skills be employed when examining evolutionary material within schools.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/a/9851</ref>

−

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement." <ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> In 2010, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx</ref> In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:

+

A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of [[United States|American]] medical doctors reject [[Darwinism]], stating that they do not believe man evolved through natural processes alone.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that "Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement."<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of [[Intelligent design|intelligent design]] over evolution.<ref>[http://www.discovery.org/a/2611 Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution]</ref> In 2010, the [[Gallup Poll|Gallup organization]] reported that 40% of Americans believe in [[young earth creationism]].<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx</ref> In January 2006, the [[BBC]] reported concerning [[Britain]]:

{{cquote|Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Line 67: Line 67:

* Barrett, Paul H. ''Darwin on Man'' 1974:276

* ''American Scientist'' May 1977:323

−

</ref> Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.<ref>[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]</ref> The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed. <ref>

+

</ref> Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been merely a ploy to downplay the implications of his [[materialism|materialistic]] theory.<ref>[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-real-message-have-you-missed-it Charles Darwin's real message. Have you missed it?]</ref> The amount of credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed<ref>

*[http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again! by Russell Grigg]

*[http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_3/j16_3_58-63.pdf Did Darwin plagiarize his evolution theory?]

Line 85: Line 85:

== Belief in evolution and intuition ==

−

In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET</ref> In January of 2012, the ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>

+

In 2012, the science news website Livescience.com published a news article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' which indicated that research suggests that gut feelings trumped facts when it comes to evolutionists believing in evolution.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling] by Live Science Staff, January 20, 2012 04:31pm ET</ref> In January of 2012, the ''Journal of Research in Science Teaching'' published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings.<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref><ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.20449/abstract Feeling of Certainty: Uncovering a Missing Link Between Knowledge and Acceptance of Evolution]</ref> The January 20, 2012 article entitled ''Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling'' published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs."<ref>[http://www.livescience.com/18051-belief-evolution-gut-feeling.html Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling]</ref>

In response to [[evolutionary indoctrination]] and the uncritical acceptance of evolution by many evolutionists, the scientists at the organization [[Creation Ministries International]] created a [[Question evolution! campaign]] which poses [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions for evolutionists]. In addition, leading creationist organizations have created lists of poor arguments that evolutionists should not use.<ref>

Line 97: Line 97:

Evolutionist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] wrote concerning the theory of evolution: "The process of [[mutation]] is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution."<ref>NorthWest Creation Network, [http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html Quotes on Genetics]</ref> Concerning various [[theories of evolution]], most evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation, [[genetic drift]] and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after [[Origin of Life|life first came about on earth]] although [[Theory of evolution and little consensus|there is little consensus on how this process is allegedly to have occurred]].<ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/1855 Climbing Mount Improbable:A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins]</ref>

−

[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grassé pointed out that bacteria which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists are organisms ~~which~~ produce the most mutants.<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grasse then points that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized".<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."<ref>[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref>

+

[[Pierre-Paul Grassé]], who served as Chair of evolutionary [[biology]] at Sorbonne University for thirty years and was ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, stated: "Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings evolve....No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." Grassé pointed out that bacteria, which are the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular biologists, are organisms that produce the most mutants.<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grasse then points out that bacteria are considered to have "stabilized".<ref>[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref> Grassé regards the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect."<ref>[ http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/quotes/mutations.html Pierre-Paul Grassé regarding mutations]</ref>

In addition, [[Harvard]] biologist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote: "It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations."<ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes9.html Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (New York: Dover Publications, 1942), p. 296]</ref>

Line 110: Line 110:

* Dr. [[Walt Brown]], Center for Scientific Creation, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html Life Sciences]

* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], P.H.D., F.M.,[http://creation.com/Whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-Lawrence-S-Lerner Who's Really Pushing 'Bad Science'?]

−

</ref> [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]</ref> An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms is evidence for the theory of evolution.<ref>

+

</ref> [[Homology]] involves the theory that macroevolutionary relationships can be demonstrated by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different organisms.<ref>Dr. [[Jerry Bergman]], [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?]</ref> An example of a homology argument is that [[DNA]] similarities between human and other living organisms are evidence for the theory of evolution.<ref>

* Dr. Georgia Purdom, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/human-and-chimp-dna If Human and Chimp DNA Are So Similar, Why Are There So Many Physical and Mental Differences Between Them?]

* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/human-chimp-dna-similarity DNA Similarity: Evidence for Evolutionary Relationship?]

RoadtoEmmaus2

Irenaeus, apieditor, Automoderated users, edit, ratelimit-exempt

889

edits