Evolution - Lies in the Textbooks, page 2

Originally posted by selfisolated
AND THEN!!

Petrification and fossilisation are NOT the same thing.
I could go on and explain, but if your that stuck in religious fanaticism, then you're not going to listen anyway.

I won't waste my energy, look up the two words yourself.

AND THEN!! He never said they were the same thing and yes carbon dating is calibrated to satisfy the time it would take for evolution's small gradual changes so to accomodate the paradigm we have now we assume evolution is true just like they do when explaining how the human eye came about as if that is the way it really did.

Do they know that for a fact?

Nope and that's why they call it the "fact of evolution" hearing it enough times one begins to even believe in such sillyness.

The OP is correct, they have an aweful lot of garbage in todays biology text books that is just plane rubbish yet they keep saying its all part of the mountain of evidence. Nothing about that theory regarding molecules to man evolution makes sense.

From the very start that theory gets off to a very un-scientific start by a guy whose only degree was in theology but for some reason many men of science take biology so they can talk as an expert about religion. Just look at Richard Dawkins.

Chapter IV of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 Mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases: "may have been," "is supposed to," "perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," "we have only to suppose," "as I believe," "it is probable," "I have assumed," "are supposed," "will generally tend," "may," "will generally tend," "If," "If...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," "and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not.

They still use haekels fraudulent embryos and his was a case of PROVEN fraud by his own admission.

The Evolution Definition Shell Game
Fred Williams
October 2000

The term evolution often takes on several meanings in today's scientific circles, often in very misleading ways. A 1999 undergraduate college textbook on Biology states: "Evolution is a generation-to-generation change in a population's frequencies of alleles or genotypes. Because such a change in a gene pool is evolution on the smallest scale, it is referred to more specifically as microevolution"1 [emphasis in original]. This type of "evolution" is widely accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike and is not in dispute. It really amounts to minor genetic variation that may result from selective breeding such as found in the different varieties of dogs, or from placing stress on a population resulting in adaptation to an environment (i.e. the peppered moth in England, or drug-resistant bacteria). Microevolution is a misnomer, since it is not evolution as most people understand the word, but instead is adaptation and variation within a kind of organism - lizards are still lizards, dogs are still dogs, and peppered moths are still peppered moths! Evolutionists invariably appeal to this kind of "evolution" as "proof" for their theory.

The same college biology book later defines macroevolution as the origin of new taxonomic groups, from species to families to kingdoms2. The problem with this definition is that it encompasses both large-scale change, such as invertebrates evolving to vertebrates (which creationists dispute), and small-scale change that results in speciation (which creationists do not dispute). Indeed a new species can easily arise by simple geographical isolation of segments of a population (called allopatric speciation). For example, there are six species of North American jackrabbits, all of which lost the ability to interbreed due to changed mating habits caused by geographic separation. Thus the term macroevolution is misleading by its inclusion of microevolution, a confusion confirmed by the very biology book that defined it, since the book later attributes speciation to microevolution on isolated populations!3

Finally, there is large-scale evolution that may be referred to as molecules-to-man evolution, a theory that organisms over a long period of time have evolved into more complex organisms through the improvement or addition of new organs and bodily structures. This is how the word evolution is generally understood by the public. In fact it was defined this way for many years until evolutionists began evolving the word!4

Molecules-to-man evolution is the type of evolution that my web site seeks to portray as a "fairy tale for grownups". It is unobservable, untestable, and has little, if any, evidence to support it. At best it should be labeled a low-grade hypothesis. Unfortunately, evolutionists continue to invoke microevolution and speciation as "evidence" that large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution is true. This is an invalid extrapolation, and is very misleading to the public. It is apparent that due to the lack of any real, tangible evidence for large-scale evolution, evolutionists have sought to create the illusion that evolution is true by reshaping and blurring the meaning of the word evolution.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by Ultradyne]