A lot of people say that they see evolution everywhere around them. They say that there is no field in science where they do not see its influence. Wait a second, you can’t have absolutes like that; it’s un-scientific.Whether something is evidence of creation or evolution all depends on your worldview, how you interpret the evidence, and your starting premises. If any of the above conditions are false, then the “proof” goes down the drain. An evolutionist looks at the Grand Canyon and says, “A little bit of water over a long period of time did this.” A creationist looks at the Grand Canyon and says, “A lot of water in a short period of time did this.” It all depends on your viewpoint. That isn’t to say that there is no absolute truth. There is, all I’m saying is that people look at things differently and make conclusions based on their worldviews.
I look around me and see examples of creation and marvelous design everywhere.
Take the giraffe, for instance. Its heart is 2 ft. long in order to pump the blood all the way to the head. Now say (hypothetically) that the long neck and head evolved before the heart. That giraffe would have a serious problem: it’s called death. Oops, there goes the carrier of the one successful mutation. I wonder what the intermediate form of the giraffe looked like. We’ll never know, because it hadn’t developed all the defensive mechanisms it needed yet. Guess we’ll have to wait another million years or so.
That’s just one example, if you look around you, you’ll see many more examples of excellent design by an awsomely intelligent Creator.
UPDATE: After doing a blog search on giraffe evolution, I discovered that some people still believe Lamark’s theory of evolution by need. (Lamark was French, by the way) That’s a funny, outdated evolutionist argument that most of them don’t use anymore.
Lamark said that a long time ago, there was a drought in Africa, and deer-like creatures needed to reach the higher branches of the trees for food. So, they stretched their necks and after a while, by passing down the “stretched neck” gene; they got to how they are now.
False for several reasons:
- Acquired characteristics are not passed down in the genes.
- Genes do not change because you want them to.
- I could sure use eyes in the back of my head, or an extra limb; but no matter how hard I try, I can’t seem to get them.
- You can’t stretch bones that long.
- You need support systems for that long neck (see post).
I find it funny that some people still subscribe to Lamark. Die-hards.
May 31st, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Uh … all the structural changes necessary for such a transformation could happen GRADUALLY - a little every generation.
The alternative is that you have, apparently, in Genesis 1:24 at least a few microseconds where the first giraffe is half-dirt and half-giraffe and there you have a transitional form again if only for an instant …
May 31st, 2006 at 7:45 pm
So, you’re saying that it’s a given that each generation will have just the right mutations (notice the plural) in the just the right spot (notice the singular) for giraffes to have long necks, etc.?
The intermediate, “gradual” forms would be suceptable to predator attack. Remember that this hypothetical evolution scenario is taking place in the real world with other animals.
For your second paragraph, I wish you would stop harping on the Gen. 1:24 thing, it dooesn’t matter. Not to mention that what you described is not evolution anyway, since it would be directed and formed by God.
In other words: SO WHAT!
May 31st, 2006 at 7:48 pm
BTW, I didn’t mean that to be an angry kind of yell. I was talking about the Gen. 1:24 argument you bring up over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:20 am
axinar- Wha? If the “pre” Giraffe can’t get its food than it dies simple as that. I don’t think its going to stop eating and over 5 (just a random number) generations its off spring can get its food. That would be some trick…
June 1st, 2006 at 11:23 am
oh and althusius great blog you have here.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:26 pm
Good point, and thanks.
June 1st, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Oh, absolutely you need to address Genesis 1:24 -
Because basically what you’re saying is, “What Darwin suggested is IMPOSSIBLE!”
Therefore you must have some OTHER idea -
Presumably a literal 7-day Genesis -
So we have to turn to Genesis to see if it has anything to say about a giraffe and the closest thing that it has to say abuot a Giraffe is “God commanded the Earth to bring forth cattle,” and I don’t see how that precludes in any way the entire sequence of events happening EXACTLY the way Carl Sagan described it.
Why would a giraffe with half the length of neck as current be any more susceptible to predator attacks than young modern giraffes or even SHORT modern giraffes?
June 1st, 2006 at 8:14 pm
When the Bible says that, it means that the Earth was to be the instrument or materials that God used to make the “cattle.” It doesn’t mean that the Earth just started belching out animals.
Besides, things didn’t happen, and don’t have to happen the way Carl Sagan said they did. Remember that he is a fallible human, not divine.
Why would a giraffe with half the length of neck as current be any more susceptible to predator attacks than young modern giraffes or even SHORT modern giraffes?
Fine, maybe that assumption was unfounded, but it could possibly be because the legs weren’t long enough yet to support the body and run away, or powerful enough to kick the predator.