Posted on

Am I Wrong About Macroevolution?

Yes, there has been some feathers ruffled by some of my last statements about the fraud called “Macro-Evolution” I honestly believe that if you think we as the human race et al. “evolved” from apes, then you need to be re-educated. I know that it sounds crazy, but you have likely been indoctrinated into secularism. You will not care as you do not have to be accountable as your post-modernism will state that “it is okay as long as you think it is okay and who am I to say you are wrong?” You are brainwashed! Please give me my airsick bag! BTW There is not one stitch of evidence confirming “one kind” evolving into “another kind” so Charlie D was wrong!

A great book to read would be 1984~ George Orwell!

God Bless

Brian Mason

Advertisements

About beaconapologetics

A Christian Apologist. A follower of Jesus. A defender of the Christian Faith

14 responses to “Am I Wrong About Macroevolution?

  1. agnophilo

    Neither are the people who wrote that article, which is par for the course at answers in genesis.

  2. Endogenus is an interesting theory. I am not a scientist so I will appeal to science with the following article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/exogenization-vs-endogenization

  3. agnophilo

    I already did. To quote my other comment:

    Actually you don’t, and gene duplication mutations add new “information” to the genomes of species all the time, which is why we often have redundant, deactivated genes cluttering up our genome which can then be freely shuffled around and modified to occasionally produce novel variations. Endogenous retroviruses (another proof of common ancestry by the way) also add new “information” and fragments of them make up about 7% of our genome. The creationist claim that no new information can be added is an old lie. Even before modern genetics people knew that animals were born with extra body parts or bigger body parts, it has always been well understood that natural variations can add, subtract and modify and is not simply limited to chipping away at life as creationists claim.

  4. agnophilo

    All kinds of things. In this instance, that the assertion that nothing can add new genetic information to a genome is a bald faced lie (not yours, the evangelists that first made it up).

  5. Of course we have DNA and so do the animals and plants, but truly what does that prove?

  6. I suggest you write a book! You may get a Nobel for it. Of course your research would have to be scrutinized by science to actually prove your conclusions. If you are correct you can buttress your statements with facts?

  7. agnophilo

    “I truly believe that if you think we as the human race et al “evolved” from apes, then you need to be re-educated. ”
    When you think of the term “ape” you think of a gorilla or something, the term “ape” is synonymous with primate which refers to a collective group of species the way mammal or fish do. So saying that it’s ridiculous that we evolved from apes when we are still to this day classified as apes is kind of like saying it’s absurd that a trout is descended from fish. It IS a fish, so is it’s parents, so are it’s more distant cousins, salmon and so on. If you mean did we evolve from other modern primates the answer is no, we are simply related to them.

    As for

    “Animals cannot evolve from one species into another, but there is a enormous capacity for variation within each species.”

    Google “ring species”, a subject creationist websites refuse to even go near (because it’s literally an example of what they claim cannot happen happening in nature). Then go to the wikipedia page for speciation (the process of one species splitting into two distinct species), you will note that it describes four different types of speciation and has a section under each entitled “observed instances”. If you think evolution means dogs turning into cats or something you don’t understand how it works and it would take a while to explain the basic biological principles involved.

    “One species of creature cannot “evolve” into another species. You would need to add more information into the genome.”

    Actually you don’t, and gene duplication mutations add new “information” to the genomes of species all the time, which is why we often have redundant, deactivated genes cluttering up our genome which can then be freely shuffled around and modified to occasionally produce novel variations. Endogenous retroviruses (another proof of common ancestry by the way) also add new “information” and fragments of them make up about 7% of our genome. The creationist claim that no new information can be added is an old lie. Even before modern genetics people knew that animals were born with extra body parts or bigger body parts, it has always been well understood that natural variations can add, subtract and modify and is not simply limited to chipping away at life as creationists claim.

  8. ​ ⋅

    No stringent, non-ambiguous definition of a ‘kind’ has been provided by anyone else either. Classifications like ‘phylum,’ ‘genus’ and ‘species’ are arbitrary and not necessarily accurate. Beacon’s statement is essentially correct; no evidence exists to substantiate the theory of evolution. Conversely, there is a growing body of evidence which clearly shows that such a thing is not even possible; it just doesn’t happen.

  9. Animals cannot evolve from one species into another, but there is a enormous capacity for variation within each species. One species of creature cannot “evolve” into another species. You would need to add more information into the genome.

  10. Here is a link to a Childrens DVD you may find interesting: http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/animal-kinds/

    God Bless

  11. KR ⋅

    “There is not one stitch of evidence confirming “one kind” evolving into “another kind””

    Until any creationist can provide a stringent, non-ambiguous definition of a “kind”, this statement is meaningless and can be safely ignored.

  12. Now would this “pity” you write of come from an evolutionary process?

Comments are closed.