Speciation: yes, Evolution: no (Creation Magazine LIVE! 4-19)


If evolution is true new species should
emerge over time. But if creation is true new species should emerge even quicker, that’s our topic this week on Creation
Magazine LIVE! Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE!, my
name’s Calvin Smith and I’m Richard Fangrad, and our topic this week is speciation.
Yes! Evolution? No! That’s right. Poorly informed anti-creationist
scoffers occasionally think they will floor their creationist opponents
with examples of species forming in nature. Its a huge issue. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from better informed
creationists, namely that the creation model depends
heavily on speciation. Some of the confusion
comes because evolutionists and creationists believe similar things sometimes,
about biodiversity, but of course disagree strongly about other
things. For example most evolutionists believe that all life came from one
original kind and then that kind of creature
gradually changed into all of the kinds that we see today and
of course that’s often explained in that tree of life. Everybody has kind of seen that diagram. We’ve got one point here and then it branches out into all
of the different things and you see all of these branching off shoots etc. And of course that means totally unique different types of creatures came from
that one original type of creature. Yes but creationists believe in more of an orchard scenario, if you want a picture, instead of the tree of evolution
you have the orchard scenario, where God created all the original
kinds and as time goes by species… …different species arrive within those kinds, they derive from
the original created kind. But we wouldn’t be like the evolutionists saying that everything came from one example. So not new kinds of
creatures like a lizard turning into a bird for example, but horses making new species of horses within the horse kind. That’s what
the orchard scenario suggests. Now it seems clear that
some of the groupings above the species level for example
genera, and sometimes higher up in the hierarchy of different kinds, are almost certainly
linked by common ancestry. That is they are descendants of one created
ancestral population. The ‘created kind’ or what we would
call Baramin. And virtually all creation theorists
assume that, for example Noah, when he was putting the animals on the
Ark, he didn’t have a pair of dingos
and a pair of wolves and coyotes and all that kind of stuff, he’d have a pair of creatures which were
ancestral to all those types a species and probably to a number
of other present day species, but they were all the ‘dog kind’. The dog
kind, right. Demonstrating that speciation can happen
in nature especially where it can be shown to have happened today is thus a positive
evidence for creation. A commonly heard objection is that surely speciation is evolution, that’s an
evolutionary scenario, and that the creationists are just
postulating even more rapid post-flood evolution than evolutionists
do. That’s an objection that we hear. Well you are just postulating… …you’re talking about evolution and
that happening quickly. But the difference is all about genetic information. We look at the details that’s where
everything happens. The big picture of evolution is that protozoa become
pelicans and palm trees and people and
pomegranates and that kind of thing thus it must have involved the process which, via natural causes, no God, no intelligence,
increased the genetic instructions in the living world. So rather than having a bunch of information the gets split up, and so you see different expressions of that information, you’ve
actually got new information appearing that causes these new things. Now, the creationist assumes that these
real substantial increases in information, that is
specifying for an increase, would never arise without intelligent design. That’s what science shows. That’s right. So this functional complexity, you
know, if a creature doesn’t have wings and
then all of sudden it has wings. Well that would be new genetic information
that didn’t exist in that kind before. So speciation within the creation model will therefore be expected to occur but we won’t see increases in
information. Specific information for forms
functions and features that where never there before. That’s what the biblical mode would suggest as well. These changes, for example, speciation as a result of horizontal changes in information are the result of mutational
defect or loss of information do not in themselves offer evidence
against the big picture of evolution, however, they also don’t demonstrate
the validity of evolutionary belief since they can be just as easily assigned a place within the creationist model, the biblical model. And we’ll have a look at some of
those examples when we come back… Half a century ago, nobel prize-winning
biologist Sir Peter Medawar made a startling comment. He declared
that the survival of a child in a mother’s womb contradicted immunological laws. Since
the immune system normally detects foreign tissue and attacks it, you’d expect the mother’s
immune system to attack the genetically distinct child within her. Well we now know that
it actually does, but the baby survives by putting up a
very specific defense. Researchers at the Medical College of
Georgia discovered that mammalian embryos produce a special enzyme that suppresses the mother’s killer T-cell action. A human embryo starts to produce this enzyme just before it attaches to the mother’s
uterus. This refutes a major argument used to support abortion, that the embryo is just a part of the
mother’s body to do with she pleases. The research clearly shows
that the human embryo is distinct from its mother from the beginning. To find out more from
Creation Ministries International visit our website Creation.com. Welcome back this week we’re talking
about speciation? Yes. Evolution? No! Rapid speciation is a
must for the creationist model. Note that some anti creationists of
course have mockingly claimed that for the number of species that we see
today to have descended from one pair, coming
of the Ark for example, would require that pair to have huge
super chromosomes to carry all that information needed. Now
while we can’t say dogmatically that what we presently know of genetic mechanisms is definitely
sufficient to provide for all the post flood variation that we see, in
fact some creationist thinkers have postulated there might be yet
undiscovered mechanisms as well, we’ll get into that later on in the show, we suggest that the converse is not been
demonstrated either. Evolutionists have not demonstrated
that you couldn’t get that. Just just think of the
variations of dogs for example. Look at all the wild and wacky dogs and
evolutionists have admitted they all come from wolves so that can happen quickly. All sexually reproducing creatures contain their genetic
information in paired form. Which means that for whatever trait this
information codes, for let’s say your eye color or whatever, you could be homozygous, which means both copies of the alleles are the same or you could be heterozygous which means
that they’re different. So one person could have two different eye colors while
another could only have alleles that are the same. So maximum heterozygosity at the beginning when God originally created would surely
give a massive variation potential. If, when God created, he created creatures
with differently alleles for different traits, just through natural selection, adaptation
pressures, Mendelian genetics, reshuffling and
sorting of that type of information you could have got substantial diversity arise in a very, very short time period. That’s actually been been
demonstrated. Like I mentioned dogs for example. Ya that’s a good example. However the reality is that in the case of the postulated post-flood variation
in the creation model, the subgroups have the status of separate species,
and that’s where it gets kind of tricky. That is even though in some instances they breed in captivity, they generally don’t do so in the wild, thus the mechanisms for speciation,
particularly rapid speciation, far from causing creationists to shudder are actually of great interest to us its a great area of study. So what can cause speciation to happen quickly? Well, taking the most straightforward modern
understanding of a species as “A group of organisms which can interbreed in nature
and does not naturally and freely interbreed with another.” It’s not hard to see how this sort of variation could easily lead to reproductive incompatibility for example. It may be for instance that sheer size difference would allow a population of chihuahuas and
Great Danes for example, to be classified as a separate species.
Yes, because they no longer interbreed. Yeah right, they just don’t
get together because of very obvious reasons and they would be
considered separate species. Also cutting populations off
with physical barriers for example, mountain ranges,
topographical changes that kind of thing, can easily
isolate subsets of genes so that could cause speciation as well, you have physical barriers that cause that. So understanding how these physical barriers could
give rise to rapid speciation, that’s always been fairly
straightforward, nevertheless the amount of post flood speciation must
have been staggering, we need to admit that, because we look at all these variations. Particularly among insects, it’s hard to see how there could
have been that many physical barriers for example to cut off these founder populations and stuff like that in insects because of the massive variation there. So there are some challenges there certainly. But it’s both encouraging and fascinating for creationist biologists to note that there’s now an increasing
acceptance of the concept of sympatric speciation. And what that
means is that populations can split into
separate species even when they’re isn’t any kind of physical barrier. They’re living together but they
they speciate. A major scientific conference on speciation
held in Elsinore California in May 1996 reports about it appeared in Science
magazine afterwards, and when we come back we’ll show you more about the
results of that report, it may be surprising to
you. We’ll be right back… Creation Ministries International focuses on the Bible’s first book,
Genesis and the creation/evolution issue. Many of our speakers are scientists with
PHD’s who before joining CMI we employed in
various scientific fields. Creation Ministries speakers go to
churches equipping and encouraging people with
the message of the truth and authority of the Bible and its relevance to the real world. To
locate upcoming CMI events or inquiring about booking a speaker into
your church visit creation.com. Welcome back. This week we’re discussing; Speciation? Yes. Evolution? No. So yes speciation takes
place. Is its support for evolution? No! And we’re giving the details here on
this week’s episode. That’s right. Rapid speciatian has to
be part of the creation model. It does yes. Now as as you mentioned, there was a
major scientific conference on speciation held in Elsinore California in May
1996 and reports about it of course appeared in
Science magazine, major science magazines around the world.
At the conference in question evidence up sympatric speciation,
meaning that the the population of creatures could
split into different species, even while living
in the same area with no separation or physical barriers was presented on this the sort of thing
having happened with ease in populations in certain types
of fruit eating insects, which used the the fruits of their host
plant for courtship displays and mating. If one group of insects, used to eating
a certain type of fruit for example started to try a new host plant then food choices became linked with mate choice. And so reproductive isolation
began. And it’s interesting that no one at the conference put forward any
evidence that new genes arose by mutation or anything like that, there was no new information seemed to be required for any these mechanisms. So
here’s evidence of creatures living together, suddenly speciating,
becoming different species… I mean when I was in school I was always
taught well look, natural selection pressures would cause creatures to
evolve new things needed to adapt to environments… Here we’ve got species happening, there’s no natural selection factor whatsoever. No, they just decided to eat new food. And then mates decided to hang out with
this one instead of the other one and then those genes get isolated. Yes amazing. Fish living in the same lake can also, it seems, become separate species,
reproductively isolated, because a food choices
again. It’s the same type of thing as the the insects there. Which leads to
different sizes and thus different mating choices.
It’s kind of like the Great Danes and the chihuahuas. Yes,it’s kind of like that again. It’s the same kind of thing. There’s no physical barriers, food choices lead to a change in size
and then you have speciation as a result. It wonderfully fits with creation. In another instance several species
of wasps appear to have a been thrust apart from
a single ancestral wasp population by way of nothing more than
differing species of bacteria in their gut. So
here they are living in one area, certain ones get certain types of
bacteria in their gut and somehow the bacteria in the females destroy the DNA for
males of the other species and you know…there’s been other
mechanisms of speciation mentioned as well in this report, which are as simple as things like the song of one bird attracting certain mates. Or certain pigment genes attracting certain mates and things like
that. So we’re watching rapid speciation happen, that fits with the creationist model, it
doesn’t fit with the evolutionary model. So it sounds like there’s quite a
number of different mechanisms here which could produce speciation in groups
of living things. It fits beautifully with the Bible. Things that happened after the Flood. Also hybridization, mixing of genes from two distinct species to form a third, a hybrid, a reproductively distinct
grouping. That that can sometimes produce
different species as well. Creationists would hold that two species which hybridized were likely to have
previously formed from a single ancestral population, or a single
original kind, We’re going to say more about that on next
week’s episode. But this is a non- evolutionary process. It’s a non-information gaining process. It’s speciation but it has nothing to do
with evolution. Once again, no new information appears out of nothing, which was not
already existing in the living world at that time. And that would have to occur if evolution was to have happened on this planet. That’s the name of the game with evolution. Its new information and speciation is seen as, well that’s something new. You’ve
got one species and now there’s two, it’s something new. But when you look at it the way
scientists need to, at a detailed level, there’s no new information. Speciation?
Yes! Evolution? No! That’s what is going on there. So this idea of rapid speciation, so
important to the creationist model is, surprise, surprise, supported by
scientific observations in a huge way. And even though rapid speciation can be
incorporated into an evolutionary model, it doesn’t provide any support for
the big picture of evolution. Yes well rapid speciation is actually difficult… yes it fits in… Well they fit it in now because they’re observing it so it’s got to fit somehow. But it wasn’t there in the beginning
it doesn’t provide support for evolution really, in
the sense of brand new genetic information being formed. Right. And of course the biblical creation
fall, Flood, migration model predicts rapid formation of new species and varieties. This is because all of the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from a comparatively few bunch of animals that disembarked from the Ark only about
4500 years ago. So in contrast, Darwin thought that this
process would normally take eons to occur. It turns out that the evidence actually supports the
creation model. And we’ll be right back… Dogs vary greatly in size, from chihuahua
to Great Dane. Yet they’re all part of the dog or
wolf created kind. They can all interbreed. Researchers have
found that the small breeds of dog have something in common, a mutation in a gene that codes for an
important growth regulator. This prevents the small dogs growing to
normal size. Mutations do that sort of thing, they
destroy normal biological functions. Some of that destruction might be
entertaining for us, producing cute miniature dogs that don’t cost much
to feed. But mutations won’t create the complex blocks of genetic
instructions needed to produce the growth regulator
in the first place. Evolutionists say that mutations changed
dinosaurs into birds and apes into people, but how can mutations which destroyed complex information do that sort of thing? Modern biology really shouts creation
not evolution. To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website creation.com. Well our topic today is; Speciation? Yes! Evolution? No! And we’ve shown you a lot of examples about why rapid speciation shows and actually supports the creationist model, not
the evolutionary model. Yes there is evidence for the biblical model. And to give you an
example of how evidence for biblical creation is spun to make it
look like evidence for evolution, let’s look at the following story. This is a
news headline here. ‘Evolution simulated in the lab’, there it is
there… An article in the prestigious journal Nature claimed that a research
study published last week had successfully recreated the South
American butterfly Heliconius Heurippa, which has red-orange and yellow-white stripes on
its wings. They did this, the article said, by
seeking to, quote, recreate the evolutionary pathway that gave rise to it. So there’s
the news report. Other news media carried the story as well
of course, the BBC reporting that the study
demonstrates that two animal species, here’s a quote, two animal species can evolve from one. But is this really a evolution? I mean a
closer look at the facts show otherwise. Researchers had suspected that H Heurippa might be a hybrid of Heliconius Cydno, which had a yellow stripe in
Heliconius Melpomene which has a
red one. So the researchers interbred these two species creating a
butterfly with the two stripe pattern of H Heurippa within just three
generations. And there was no need to physically
separate the two striped butterflies from the others in order to maintain the purity of
the newly bred H Heurippa. “Butterflies tend to choose partners that look like themselves” said one researcher, Chris Jiggins of Edinburgh University. So once the new
pattern was established these individuals have tended to mate
with one another and shunned their parental species. So there’s an example of it happening, but when we look at the details
did we see any new, brand new genetic information form that
wasn’t already in the… …it’s a mix have information that was
already there. It’s a fantastic example of rapid speciation,
it fits beautifully with the Bible, no surprise to creationists. However
it’s not evolution. No new genetic information was produced, the butterflies are still butterflies, the
hybrid species simply having an assortment of genes inherited from the two-parent populations. And that stories kind of the opposite to
this one. This is still touted as evolution, look at this report from the
Star.com. “Is a coyote? Is it a wolf? Yes and yes. It’s a ‘coywolf’. The
predators that are plaguing Durham Region and showing up in urban areas appear to
be an emerging species resulting from wolves and coyotes interbreeding.” Well we’d agree with that. We see that
stuff happening all the time. But look how they describe it; “The larger highly adaptable animals have
the wolf characteristics of pack hunting and aggression and the coyote characteristics of lack of fear of human developed areas, says Trent University geneticist Bradley
White, who’s been studying the hybrids for 12
years. We’re seeing evolution in action, he says.” Now isn’t
this what we see in the news reports all the time. Look! More evidence of evolution!
It’s a snow job… It’s evolution only if you limit the meaning of that word to what creationists would agree
with. Animals change, speciation happens. If you want to call that evolution
well that’s very confusing. If I take a Great Dane and I take a German Shepherd and I breed them together and they produce a hybrid, is that
evolution? I mean that’s the simplistic explanation he’s saying here for a wolf and
a coyote breeding together. And we’re seeing evolution in action. But without understanding the details the people who read that article years
ago are not going to get the impression that… …if you look at the details it’s not
evolution in terms of microbes-to-man, particles-to-people… …lizards turning into birds where all of
the sudden they have wings that never existed before… There’s confusion in this area certainly
and one of the DVD’s that we carry, it’s a great DVD called ‘Dynamic life;
changes in living things’. Dr Carl Wieland, sort of the grandfather of the ministry.
He started Creation magazine on his typewriter in the late seventies, he explains the
differences between natural selection, what creationists, what we’ve always agreed with, and evolution. That’s discussed in theory,
particles turning into people and so on. It’s a great DVD, you can get it at a discount using a code. We’ll put the code up on the screen, CMLDL Dynamic life. Creation Magazine LIVE!
Dynamic Life. You can get 50% off. So when you go online, as you’re checking out put that coupon code in there and you’ll get fifty percent off of
this fascinating DVD by Dr Carl Wieland. I remember watching that DVD and as a former evolutionist it blew my mind to see all that evidence that I’d been taught was proof of evolution actually supported
the Bible, it was amazing. I encourage you to check it out. And we’ll be back… For a more in-depth understanding of
topics relating to the creation/evolution debate the Journal of Creation contains peer-reviewed research papers that support the biblical account of the creation the Flood and the Fall. One subscriber said; I’d always assumed
that this journal would be to academic for me, not so. I am a Christian with a very
inquiring mind. With each issue I find powerful articles that open doors and shine light on my
understanding of the world. Each Journal of Creation is more than 120 pages and published three times a year. To
subscribe visit creation.com. Well welcome back. This is the Feedback
section. We often get feedback from articles
that we write, sometimes from the TV episodes here, and so here was a response from somebody writing from Australia and they said
this; Dear Sir or Madam, I wish to object
strongly to your ministry’s representation of the Bible’s recount of creation in Genesis as a
valid scientific alternative to mainstream cosmology, geology and biology. As a Christian I
take seriously the task of reading the Bible. Seriously, but not literally. It is
significant on this first Sunday in Lent on the ninth of March the lectionary
readings for the temptations of Christ include passages from Genesis about Adam and Eve’s temptation. Serious exegesis leads the reader to a
deeper understanding of the human duty to resist temptation while a pilgrim on the way to the cross
at the end the Easter. The details are the type of fruit, or serpent, or the alleged dimensions and
location of Eden are not important. As an enthusiast astronomer and
physicist I also perfectly accept that the universe is
13.8 billion years old and the earth is 4.6 billion. Evolution
occurs, just as our understanding of science and the Gospel does. Yours faithfully, K G
from Australia. Okay so there’s the letter in
full and then as usual, as we usually do, one of our
folks, scientists or speakers responds to it in interspersed fashion. One of the comments that we mention was; Actually the serious
way to take it (to take the Bible) is governed by
two principals. Number one, recognize Scripture as God breathed. Number two; The true meaning of Scripture
is the meaning that the original readership would have understood by the words the
inspired authors used. Exactly. You know it’s interesting to
even hear this kind of phrasing because I’ve heard these kinds of things before. I’ve seen it on church billboards as you are driving along sometimes. You know we take the Bible
seriously but not literally. And it’s like you know, if you applied that to anybody that you really hold in high
esteem or that has authority over you… You know if
I was to tell my wife, you know honey, I take you seriously but not literally. Or if I was to tell my
employer I take you seriously, but not literally. Oh you mean you really wanted me to do that? Oh you mean I’m supposed to actually do that? Think about this… Part of the
confusion is over the word ‘literal’. What literal means is you take it as it’s written. Not a wooden literalism, and
people say well biblical literalists, “Do you guys believe that the trees of the field literally clap their hands?” No. Taking something literally means taking it in the form that it is written.
We understand there’s many different types of literature within
Scripture? How did the original audience, how
were they intended to interpret what the scripture? So of
course there’s things like poetic… …poems and there is allegory and Jesus would use different ways to explain things, different parables and things like that. But the fact is understanding that it’s
a parable is taking it in the literal grammatical-historical
context. We understand, but even a parable has a
literal moral explanation. It’s got a meaning to
that. Yes, literal is just a confusing word. A word that we’re using more and more often within CMI, within Creation Ministries International is, take it ‘straightforwardly’. Just take the word literal out because so many people are confused by that. We take it straightforwardly, we take it
in the way that’s written. If it’s a parable you take it as a
parable, don’t pretend that its real history, its a parable. You know if I go to have a meal and I say “I’m so hungry I could eat a horse”, Most people aren’t going to go wow, Cal wants to eat a horse. They’d go wow, Cal’s really hungry. That’s the literal or plain meaning
of what I said, even though I gave you some… It’s a
figure of speech and everybody gets that. That’s right. So what we’re saying is no,
we take the Bible as plainly written and when you read Genesis it really is
supported as real history. We’ll see you next time…

13 thoughts on “Speciation: yes, Evolution: no (Creation Magazine LIVE! 4-19)

  • Thank you for a great video and your great work. I do have one concern however that I would like to hear your opinion on: Is the word "evolution" smart to use? On CMI I see that  you consistently say: "Evolution vs. Creation" while you at the same time state that "evolution" can mean many things. So from this video I get that we creationists believe in "evolution", but we don't believe in "evolution". And I agree. But would it be smarter if we creationists started saying: "Darwinism vs. Creationism" since "-ism" is often associated with philosophies and beliefs, rather than operational science? What is your opinion on this?

  • Of course Catholics don't take God's Word literally. Because the one they follow, the Pope, has compromised with the world since the Churches incipience. Now he agrees with evolution, says gays and nonbelievers go to heaven, aliens should he baptized and most disturbing of all he says that a personal relationship with Jesus is dangerous!! If they truly followed God they'd realize His Word (Jesus) trumps all especially man made institutional doctrines that the Pope stands in His stead and is infallible. Lol Goodness gracious. I despise false teachings.

  • Would subspeciation be a more accurate term in the creation model? It makes more sense actually as opposed to universal speciation.

  • What evidence do you have, that is INDEPENDENT of evolution ? seems to me creationists are very slowly accepting evolution , just look at the history of creationism, it started with a complete denial of evolution, and now an attempt to simply reexplain evolution to fit their beliefs.

     But what evidence to back up ? Creationism would have to have evidence unique to it, what do creationists have that is unique ?

  • The "age" of the univverse is not 13,8 billions years old since light comes to us from galaxies 40 billions lightyears away!! At the same time the Earth is 4 billions years old from our ponit of view!! This is relativistic physics and it also probes to us that the universe is not expanding!! The redskhift is an Doppler eeffect!! And from Gods ponit of view the Earth can be 6000 "years" old!! No CONTRADICTION here!!

  • Speciation IS Evolution. "Changes in a population over time." Scientists just don't perform special pleading and invoke non-existent rules that limit the amount a species can change.

    A wolf produces wolf offspring, and through selection and genetic mutation, wolves gave rise to dogs. A wolf didn't give birth to a dog, the children are always the species of its parents. A wolf gave birth to a wolf that was different enough from the original wolf ancestor that it became classified as a new species. Before that was miacidae which gave rise to wolves through the same process.

    The fact is that you are extremely different from your African ancestors, but there is a high likelihood that you have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA in you showing that you are related, and descended from another species long ago.

  • The variations within kinds are not microevolution as no evolution is involved at all. Microevolution is a misnomer. Variations within kinds of organisms have to do with genetics at work, with gene expression of alleles (different varieties of a certain trait, such as different hair and skin colors) already in existence in the gene pool in nature. No new genetic information is added. It's just the selection of different alleles through the Punnett Square rule expressing genes (dominant, recessive and co-dominant). Gene transfer, such as during meiosis, is technically not a part of the definition of mutation. When I studied biochemistry, mutations mean insertions, deletions and point mutations of nucleotides much like introducing typing errors in the word "transportation", with insertion like "transmportation", deletion like "trasportation", and point mutation like "transmortation". Such true definition of mutation will only result in partial or whole gene deletion resulting in loss of genetic information, such as in individuals with HIV immunity (delta32 mutation) resulting in partial loss of CCR5 gene that normally codes for chemokine receptors that the HIV use to enter CD4+ leukocytes. The delta32 mutation is technically a genotypically detrimental mutation resulting in loss of genetic information so that no chemokine receptors are coded resulting in HIV immunity. But since chemokine receptors do have their normal physiological functions in helping to mount an inflammation, with their absence due to delta32 mutation, HIV immune individuals are also more susceptible to other kinds of infections such as West Nile disease.

    You might want to take a course in genetics to see why speciation is not evolution at all.

    I would warn Christians not to allow evolutionists to use the term "microevolution" because first of it, no evolution is involved in variations of kinds or speciation. Secondly and most importantly, it won't give them the free-rider effect to say "microevolution given long enough time will turn into macroevolution". Well, if they want to insist that, then ask them for observable evidence of macroevolution since their imaginary billions of years have already gone by. With our planet populated with all kinds of organisms, with so much billions of years in the past tense (their excuse for practicing voodoo science of evolution), they should have no problem showing us fish turning into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals in real life. Their billions of years magical ingredient is no longer working for them. It's time for everyone to accept a young earth. =)

  • Well, should we take everything Richard Dawkins says either literally or figuratively? Does it have to be either/or? Can't it be both? Why can't we say the same about interpretation of the Bible?

  • I DONOT believe in any evolution…no body every see things changing , god put DNA in the body with information, mutations, variations switches ..to change and survive in the hardest atmosphere…like sin entered and every living thing have time hard time to survive ,

  • Evolution is evilution. It makes people believe that somehow a random Bing bang (not caused by God but who knows what) , would cause the creation of apes that somehow transform into humans. Ridiculous. Most who believe this would doubt Jesus. Just because apes might have similar DNA structure, it doesn't mean we "evolved" from them. Female apes might carry for there children like women do, they might go take a bath in the lake like humans to do, they might eat things that humans do, but it is absurd to think we evolved from them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *