How is natural selection used by creationists to oppose evolution???

Question

Ok so I need help with this question....

can't seem to find it anywhere...

I am counting on you to help :)

Answer 1

You can stop looking. Evolutionists are constantly ridiculing creationists in this forum for not understanding evolutionary theory yet the responses you have received so far demonstrate the willful ignorance of evolutionists to understand creation theory. I’m not saying this to denigrate the people that have responded, only to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the normally hateful comments directed at creationists.

These are the FACTS – Creationists believe in and support real operational science that can be tested and observed in the presence. There is no reason for them not to since most fields of traditional science were developed by creationists who believed in a literal 6 day creation and who saw no conflict between God and science but rather used their skills to more fully discover God’s creation.

Natural selection, mutations and speciation are scientific FACTS that we can observe in the present. All informed creationists believe and support these concepts. In fact, they are cornerstones of creation theory that enabled the original created kinds to diversify into the variety of life we see today, but only within their kinds. That is, despite change, fruit flies are still fruit flies, finches are still finches, peppered moths are still peppered moths, cavefish are still cavefish and bacteria are still bacteria. In fact, rapid speciation (within the original created kinds) has astonished evolutionist who thought that this took millions of years. We now know this diversity could have easily took place within 6000 years.

However, evolutionist will use the concepts of natural selection and mutations to extrapolate backwards past the initial creation of the original kinds to fantasize that all the diversity we see originated from a single common ancestor which itself arose from none living matter. There is no evidence for this conjecture called the theory of evolution. The scientific LAWS of biogenesis and thermodynamics, among others, fly in the face of evolution indicating that evolution is anti-science.

If evolution were true, than massive amounts of new information, specified complexity, novel body plans and functions would have to be added to change a molecule into a man. We have NEVER observed this in nature or the fossil record. When asked for evidence in the present evolutionist say evolution is too SLOW to observe it. When asked for evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionist say evolution is to FAST to observe it. Apparently anything goes for evolution which cannot be falsified and therefore is not a good scientific theory. Rather, it is a fairy tale for adults to think that you can kiss a frog, wait a million years and have it turn into a prince.

Answer 2

The wording of the question is a little strange, but I think what you are referring to is the fallacious appeal to wishful thinking the "Natural selection is so mean, and I don't want the world to be mean, therefore, evolution must be false" argument.

There is also the corollary "If humans acted in society according to natural selection, we'd all be killing each other, and that would be bad, therefore, evolution ought to be false, so therefore, it is false."

Answer 3

There are no good arguments against evolution, but I suppose they can say that the natural selection only selects members of the species in question to survive, and does not create a new species.   The key is the fact that mutations are needed to create new species, followed by natural selection.

Answer 4

I don't think there is a valid answer to this question.  Creationists may use it to argue that natural selection does not fit into the context of the bible, but there is no evidence to support this view -- it's based solely on faith and belief.  Therefore it has no place in science.

Answer 5

The short answer is “poorly”.

Natural selection can be divided into three categories: stabilizing selection, directional selection and disruptive selection. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional... Stabilizing selection applies when individuals with average characteristics tend to be favored more than those with unusual characteristics. This type of selection works to prevent evolution of the characteristics involved.  Directional and disruptive selection apply when non-average individuals are favored.  These types of selective regimes thus lead to evolution of the population over time.  Creationists sometimes argue that natural selection works to prevent evolution by equating natural selection to stabilizing selection alone, and ignoring the other two categories.