No Salamander Evolution Evidence, Past or Present

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 4-16-2015 | Frank Sherwin

[fishtank]

No Salamander Evolution Evidence, Past or Present

by Frank Sherwin, M.A. *

Scientists in Portugal unearthed a "super salamander" which, although "weird compared to anything today," is still very much a salamander.1

The fossilized bones of the six-foot (two meter) animal were discovered on a hillside dig "chock-full" of bones and declared to originate from the "Upper Triassic" period, some 200 million years ago according to evolutionary dating. While evolutionists like to claim that variations in traits within a species are proof of evolution, salamanders have always been salamanders regardless of their size.

[fishtank]

Made my day!!!!!!

[dp0622]

After my brain injury, and during my brutal eight year and counting struggle to heal, I have read for thousands of hours about the human brain and body and it is a masterpiece of design and more complex than one can ever imagine.
All of the parts of the brain and so many different chemicals and hormones that play a role in the sleep cycle alone is dumbfounding. The repair that the body does to body and brain during sleep is remarkable. Can’t see how evolution did ALL of this.

[BrandtMichaels]

So then you’re saying there were no significant environmental changes for 200 million years in order that the theory of evolution is defended per the humble salamander?

[MrB]

The BIG paradigm difference between Creationist and Evolutionist origins of biodiversity

lies in the question “where did the information come from?”

Creationist - original creatures had all the biodiverse information necessary from the start

Evolutionist - information was not present and was added randomly by mutation and “held” in place by a “ratcheting” effect

There are several fails in the latter which I won’t go into.

[onyx]

Liberals tell gigantic lies and then try to make you feel stupid for asking them simple questions they can't answer.

They are trained to attack, to insult, and to belittle anyone who dare exposes how "not very smart" they really are.

The fact is there are no transitional fossils that prove that ANY species has ever evolved into a new one...EVER, not a single one.

Michael Harris








Free Republic is YOUR Voice and Forum!!
PLEASE Make YOUR Donation!
Go Monthly if you possibly and reliably can!


You Can Help Drastically Shorten FReepathons by Donating Monthly!
VERY Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please Sign Up to Donate Monthly!

[rjsimmon]

What does It matter how God decided to go about things. The fact is he did. That’s good enough for me.

Because God created which is in opposition to evolution. Evolution mandates random mutations that are accepted by the species. Natures shows mutations to be eradicated by the species. One primary difference in these philosophies is the distinction between "mutation" and "adaptation". Evolutionists herald mutation as the answer to variations within a species whereas Creationists proclaim adaptation.

[MeshugeMikey]

ENJOY!!

[HiTech RedNeck]

The philosophy needed to reduce the arrival of life on earth to this, also reduces existence to a pointless game of chance.

There are “theistic evolutionisms” bouncing around out there, but they still need a Designer to make them work. If the parameters do not line up quite well, the result is just to die off. This is really positing another mode of creation and another mode of miracle, in fact.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Indeed, the sting is in the word “random.” That this was something that somehow dumb matter could do without need of a providence.

One has to reduce existence to some gargantuan dice game to make such a theory fly. It vitiates the proffered philosophy.

[tet68]

So where are the millions of these?

In the democrat party?

[fishtank]

LOL, that was the first thing I thought of.....

But they’re illegally immigrating to the RINOs as fast as they can get there.....

[Covenantor]

[fishtank]

Yep.

Years ago, I thought of “engineered adaptability” as a phrase to describe the variations that one observes when a habitat changes and the animals have to adapt.

I have no idea if it was an original phrase or not.

[MeganC]

I never said it was my theory. But perhaps you might conclude that I paid attention in high school when they talked about it.

If salamanders are well adapted for their environment and there’s always such an environment available to them then why change?

Myself, I am not enamored of evolution as some sort of alternate religion as it is for too many leftists. Likewise, I do not define or qualify my Christian faith predicated on rejecting evolutionary theory.

I figure there are a lot of mysteries in the universe and God created them all. How He did it is interesting to consider but all that matters is knowing that He did it.

Either way it goes with evolution or creationism I refuse to put God in a box and presume to dictate to the Almighty that my faith is conditioned on that He had to have created everything exactly as is written in the Bible.

It is enough to know that He created everything.

“Be still and know that I am God.”

That’s all that matters. Don’t be distracted by details.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The evidence is so robust that even “theistic evolutionism” theories need a very high degree of engineering in order to be able to work.

And even yet, the scope of such a thing would be limited at best if Holy Writ can be trusted. Animals were formed out of the ground and so were humans. There could be room for “theistic evolution” to craft variations around an existing “kind” (to use a quasi-vague term) but not to bring us our kinds ex nihilo. That would be to form the animals (and people) from each other, rather than the ground.

And yet. Sometimes people get so wrapped up in theological fine points that they fail to acknowledge the divine hand and witness of nature, which is vouched by Holy Writ to be so powerful that nothing else is needed to call humans to responsibility before God. Modern secular evolutionism is a ludicrous dance around acknowledgment of the obvious divine hand. Meeting it effectively does not require cramming a bible down anybody’s throat.

[dp0622]

Okay. WHAT is going on? I have an IQ of 140 and I can barely understand the responses I have gotten lol. What the hell are you people. Some kind of genetically engineered super humans lol
I LOVE free republic for what I learn on so many subjects everyday.
I am of Italian descent and grew up with all blue collar Italian guys and the deepest we got was which nightclub had the hottest girls lol.
They all skipped school and just barely graduated but went on to become firemen and cops and sanitation and construction workers. But all of their kids are gong to college.
Isn’t America great.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Monkey business?

[BrandtMichaels]

Your response seems somewhat reasonable and you will find many on here that will agree with you 100%.

But I prefer a God who I can trust completely. If He’s powerful enough to tame the power of the origins of the universe I think He can also be trusted with His Words [No other book in mankind’s history is even close in it’s uniqueness and accuracy]. Many Christians can’t defend this front b/c of too much pride and hubris, way too many are so convinced of the scientific method in it’s accuracy. I’m not against science as long as the assumptions are clearly stated and it stays within the scientific steps - that science is true and is often found to be in agreement with the Bible. But with the bias and secular government funding introduced over the last 100 years many truths are trampled. Look at how many swear an oath to the constitution and then can’t even defend it b/c they don’t really understand it!?

Least of all let’s not forget that when the ‘powers that be’ strangle the observation and experimentation steps of the scientific method in their glee to claim evolution is proven-science, hardly any truths are left intact. Is there a gay gene? Does anthropogenic global warming [oops climate change] exist?

Micro-evolution? Yes, by all means but macro? Even mathematicians believe in higher percentages than Christians that macro-evolution is quite literally impossible - even with trillions of years still quite impossible!

Your biggest disadvantage is only one side of the argument is presented and allowed in schools today so you are left w/o much of the argument against

- see creationscience.com -

if you’d like to hear the best arguments against macro-evolution.

[WhiskeyX]

“For a scenario like that to work, your likely mutations and your requirements would have to line up very well.”

“It sounds positively providential, in fact. There really is no escape along those lines.”

The entire article is just one big and bizarre lie. The article is a classic example of using a gigantic lie s the basis for a strawman argument. The article starts off with statements which lie by falsely claiming salamanders are unchanged and not evolved in the geological record. Those statements are bald faced lies, because there is a wealth of fossil evidence and current specimens of hundreds of distinctly different species of salamanders having radically different morphological and other biological characteristics, not to mention the vastly different forms of the thousands of collateral families, genera, and species. Among the existing salamanders alone radical differences in limbs, organs for breathing, and means of eating prey make them distinctly different and not at all the same animal species.

The people who published the article should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such blatant deceit, and that is regardless of whether or not they choose to irrationally believe in young Earth creationism.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And your diatribe shows that belief in evolution is circular.