The Missing Link
Evolution vs. Creation Science is one of the most controversial topics in religion today. According to today's Church, evolution undermines everything Christians believe in. It says that people were not created, everything is chance, and there is no God. People therefore have no inherent value. I agree strongly that with no God, people have no inherent value. But I do not necessarily believe that evolution proves that there is no God. White I consider myself a Creation-evolutionist, I am not completely convinced either way on this issue as I see strong (yes I DID say strong) scientific evidence in favor of evolution, but I also see strong (once again STRONG) evidence against the traditional evolutionary theory. This did not make sense to me for a long time, but I believe I have come up with one possible scenario for the beginning of time and the world. If you hold any traditional view whether it be Christian or Evolutionist, I disagree with you. My view is not traditional. While I would be surprised if I were the only one to hold this belief, I have never met anyone who does. But just because no one believes it does not make it false. People for a long time thought the world was flat, and they were wrong. The Christian Church killed people for saying that Earth was not the center of the universe. They thought that the Earth not being in the center would undermine the Bible. We know now that the earth is most definitely NOT the center, but Christianity is still thriving. It turned out that the Bible could be correct even while the Earth was not the center of the universe. In fact, there was no conflict, it was tradition that was in conflict, not the Bible. I am determined now to find out if evolution is in conflict with the Bible, or simply in conflict with traditional beliefs.
Every living thing on this planet has a chemical in their cells called DNA. DNA is the blueprint of life. Using different combinations of four substances, DNA tells the cells in an organism how to put together a life form. When a life form reproduces, small errors called mutations appear in the DNA in the new life form, much like when you make a copy of an audio tape. These mutations usually do absolutely nothing, but once in a while have an effect on the new organism. Unlike copying an audio tape, once in a very long while these mutations can have a positive effect. This effect will allow the new organism to live easier and be more likely to reproduce. If it reproduces, the new modification will be passed down to the next generation. Eventually, this modification will alter the entire species because the ones with this modification live easier than the others and will reproduce more. What I have just described is a known, observable and proven fact, called micro-evolution. This DOES happen. The type of evolution in question is macro-evolution. This, put simply, is micro-evolution on a scale that would alter a species so much that it would turn into another species, i.e. it could not produce offspring with the original species that would be able to produce offspring of it's own. An example would be a horse and a donkey... they can have offspring together, a mule, but mules are sterile. Therefore horses and donkeys are different species. Kind of.
Most Christians that I talk to say "I believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution! *GOD* created the universe!!!!" From what I see, if micro-evolution were not PROVEN, they would not believe in that either. But we know it happens, so in that case they would be wrong. But we do know it happens, so they have to admit it. "But I don't believe in macro-evolution," they say. "Why?" I ask. The way I see it, if you put two groups of the same species in drastically different environments (let's say one very hot and one very cold) and leave them for a few hundred years, then change the environments on them again (say make one group have to run very fast in order to eat and the other has to dig into the ground to eat), then change again to something else, in the course of a thousand years or so the two groups would have micro-evolved themselves into slightly different species. Now that they are different species, they will continue to micro-evolve without genetic influence from the other group, even if they two groups are re-introduced to each other in the same environment. This could eventually lead to a drastically different species, and would be called macro-evolution. This has only been observed on a very limited number of occasions, but it has happened as well. The question is this: are the limited number of occasions enough to prove that life on Earth evolved? Most Christians (including me) would say no. It's not enough. But unlike most other Christians, this catches my attention, because it just flat out makes sense.
Frankly, I don't see how macro-evolution can't exist if micro-evolution does. If you change the DNA enough, you WILL eventually have a different species. They may look and act the same, but they will be different enough to not be able to reproduce. Once that happens, the two groups cannot influence each others' genes. I don't see how this can't be happening. "Because GOD would stop it! Because evolution is WRONG!!!" Well sorry, I don't think God would stop it, there is nothing Biblical that says that God would stop it. In fact, this system (if true) is an absolutely BRILLIANT system! It would be horrible to deny God the glory for thinking it up if that's how things actually work!
Ever since the idea of evolution came to be, it has had holes or "missing links." If species evolve slowly, where are the "in-between" animals? Well, first of all, if evolution is true, a common cat may be an "in-between" animal for something else down the road. It just looks normal to us because we are used to seeing it... but more important I believe is the first question. The "missing links" throw a wrench into the idea of evolution. No solid fossil records of any "in-between" animals in the past, only huge and vast jumps in evolution, which are not possible. We have mammoths and elephants, but nothing linking them. We have kittens and tigers, but nothing linking them. We have lizards and snakes, but once again, nothing linking them. Where are the fossil records of these "in-between" animals? They don't exist. This, many would say, disproves evolution on a macro scale. I DON'T... I have found the missing link, and why it has not been discovered before is simple. It's because the missing link is nothing less than the Bible itself. The history recorded in the Bible was the final clue to me that evolution really could be true.
What is this "Missing Link?" It's time. The problem with the traditional evolutionary theory is simply that they have the timeline all wrong. When we look into the fossil record, we are seeing at most 10,000 years into the past, not 10,000,000. The reasons I believe this I will explain in later posts, but for now let's make that assumption. If we can only see 10,000 years into the past, no wonder all we see are huge leaps in the evolutionary changes. It's because we can't see far back enough to see the "in-between" species. Think about that for a while, and I'll post more later.
Every living thing on this planet has a chemical in their cells called DNA. DNA is the blueprint of life. Using different combinations of four substances, DNA tells the cells in an organism how to put together a life form. When a life form reproduces, small errors called mutations appear in the DNA in the new life form, much like when you make a copy of an audio tape. These mutations usually do absolutely nothing, but once in a while have an effect on the new organism. Unlike copying an audio tape, once in a very long while these mutations can have a positive effect. This effect will allow the new organism to live easier and be more likely to reproduce. If it reproduces, the new modification will be passed down to the next generation. Eventually, this modification will alter the entire species because the ones with this modification live easier than the others and will reproduce more. What I have just described is a known, observable and proven fact, called micro-evolution. This DOES happen. The type of evolution in question is macro-evolution. This, put simply, is micro-evolution on a scale that would alter a species so much that it would turn into another species, i.e. it could not produce offspring with the original species that would be able to produce offspring of it's own. An example would be a horse and a donkey... they can have offspring together, a mule, but mules are sterile. Therefore horses and donkeys are different species. Kind of.
Most Christians that I talk to say "I believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution! *GOD* created the universe!!!!" From what I see, if micro-evolution were not PROVEN, they would not believe in that either. But we know it happens, so in that case they would be wrong. But we do know it happens, so they have to admit it. "But I don't believe in macro-evolution," they say. "Why?" I ask. The way I see it, if you put two groups of the same species in drastically different environments (let's say one very hot and one very cold) and leave them for a few hundred years, then change the environments on them again (say make one group have to run very fast in order to eat and the other has to dig into the ground to eat), then change again to something else, in the course of a thousand years or so the two groups would have micro-evolved themselves into slightly different species. Now that they are different species, they will continue to micro-evolve without genetic influence from the other group, even if they two groups are re-introduced to each other in the same environment. This could eventually lead to a drastically different species, and would be called macro-evolution. This has only been observed on a very limited number of occasions, but it has happened as well. The question is this: are the limited number of occasions enough to prove that life on Earth evolved? Most Christians (including me) would say no. It's not enough. But unlike most other Christians, this catches my attention, because it just flat out makes sense.
Frankly, I don't see how macro-evolution can't exist if micro-evolution does. If you change the DNA enough, you WILL eventually have a different species. They may look and act the same, but they will be different enough to not be able to reproduce. Once that happens, the two groups cannot influence each others' genes. I don't see how this can't be happening. "Because GOD would stop it! Because evolution is WRONG!!!" Well sorry, I don't think God would stop it, there is nothing Biblical that says that God would stop it. In fact, this system (if true) is an absolutely BRILLIANT system! It would be horrible to deny God the glory for thinking it up if that's how things actually work!
Ever since the idea of evolution came to be, it has had holes or "missing links." If species evolve slowly, where are the "in-between" animals? Well, first of all, if evolution is true, a common cat may be an "in-between" animal for something else down the road. It just looks normal to us because we are used to seeing it... but more important I believe is the first question. The "missing links" throw a wrench into the idea of evolution. No solid fossil records of any "in-between" animals in the past, only huge and vast jumps in evolution, which are not possible. We have mammoths and elephants, but nothing linking them. We have kittens and tigers, but nothing linking them. We have lizards and snakes, but once again, nothing linking them. Where are the fossil records of these "in-between" animals? They don't exist. This, many would say, disproves evolution on a macro scale. I DON'T... I have found the missing link, and why it has not been discovered before is simple. It's because the missing link is nothing less than the Bible itself. The history recorded in the Bible was the final clue to me that evolution really could be true.
What is this "Missing Link?" It's time. The problem with the traditional evolutionary theory is simply that they have the timeline all wrong. When we look into the fossil record, we are seeing at most 10,000 years into the past, not 10,000,000. The reasons I believe this I will explain in later posts, but for now let's make that assumption. If we can only see 10,000 years into the past, no wonder all we see are huge leaps in the evolutionary changes. It's because we can't see far back enough to see the "in-between" species. Think about that for a while, and I'll post more later.
posted by Calan at 19:13
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home