Are you confused about the meaning of evolution, dear reader? Well, this is your lucky day, because everything is about to be clarified by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Think You Know How Evolution Works? You’re Wrong (Because They Changed the Definition). Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
What is evolution? Well, that really depends on whom you ask. There are all kinds of definitions out there. Typically, when we think of evolution, we think of Darwinian evolution — the idea of all life descended from a common ancestor as one kind turns into another kind, and eventually ape-like creatures supposedly evolved into humans. But now we often hear a very different definition: those small changes within a kind are, well, evolution!
This attempt to re-define evolution is intolerable to ol’ Hambo. According to this new definition, evolution is not only macro evolution, but also micro evolution. This is an outrage! If you don’t understand what creationists regard as the the vast distinction between those two things, see the section “Micro-yes, Macro-no” in Common Creationist Claims Confuted. Now you understand. Okay, then Hambo says:
A recent article [in New Scientist: Think you understand how evolution works? You’re probably wrong] defined evolution according to a definition from famous evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins: “evolution is changed gene frequencies in populations.”
Dawkins knows what he’s talking about, but Hambo disagrees. He quotes from the article:
If, for some reason, a given gene in a patch of weeds, say, gets slightly more or less common from one generation to the next, evolution has happened. The gene doesn’t have to confer a survival advantage, or be “adaptive” or make the weed “fitter”. It doesn’t have to be “selected for” or increase biological complexity. It simply has to change in frequency, maybe by chance. That is all.
That is not only shocking, it’s absolutely unacceptable to Hambo. He tells us:
They then explain that some of these changes in gene frequencies increase the organism’s chance of survival and passing along its genes. … Their main point is that evolution has no direction, no goal, and it’s not moving toward an increase in complexity, as many people think. Therefore, they believe, many people have misconceptions about evolution.
Hambo is enraged. He has no misconceptions because he knows The Truth™! He continues:
But in their definition of evolution, they’re really equivocating. [Huh?] They are taking something we observe — changes in gene frequency in a population — and calling that evolution, even though no change in kind has happened [A toad hasn’t given birth to a squirrel.] — no new genetic information has been added into the genome. [To understand creationists’ “information,” see: Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information.] But the way evolutionists use the word evolution isn’t just to mean “change.” They use the word evolution for small changes and supposed molecules-to-man evolution-type changes. The small changes we observe, but the other supposed changes we don’t!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We see small changes but not big ones! For our discussion of that creationist clunker, see The Scientific Case Against Stairs. Let’s read on:
Think about it this way. [Whatever you say, Hambo!] In order to turn a single-celled organism into a more complex creature, you must add in a tremendous amount of brand-new genetic information. [Hee hee!] It’s this genetic information (DNA) that codes for how to build every different organism here on earth. Without genetic information, you can’t build any living thing. And yet “changes in gene frequency” aren’t adding any brand-new genetic information. It’s a loss of already-existing information, a reshuffling of information, or a preservation of information that was already there. In every case, the information is already there!
Are you beginning to see how wrong you’ve been, dear reader? In case you missed Hambo’s main point, here’s another excerpt:
There’s no known naturalistic method that can create brand-new genetic information. So, molecules-to-man evolution is biologically impossible!
Hambo is so wise! And now we come to the end:
Do we have the definition of evolution wrong? No. Evolutionists just keep changing it in order to make a failed idea (that has never been observed) appear now to have observational evidence to support it. But, as ever, molecules-to-man evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale.
At last, dear reader, it’s all there in one easy-to-read post. Now, if you continue to cling to your insane evolution theory, you are without excuse.
Copyright © 2019. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.