Seriously.

It doesn’t mean “become more complex” or “change into something better than before.” Just “change.” You can even expand that into “change in response to environment/stimuli” and still be ok, though there is evolution due to genetic mutations which won’t be covered.

So, if I am the Red Queen, and I want my white roses red, I can essentially cause evolution – change – by having my gardeners (the ones I don’t behead) gradually breed “redness” into my roses by selecting’ the roses which have some pinkish hue.

Evolution exists. Can’t be disproven. You EAT evolution everytime you eat a big fat grape. You fight evolution everytime you try to hold up ONLY your 4th finger.

You acknowlege evolution every time you say that your kid looks just like you.

Give it up, already.

I just wanted to point that the crux of your argument is that Christians are hypocritical in taking vaccines because they don’t believe/think that viruses can change genetically. This is false.

As for faith, whenever I sit on a new chair— I exercise faith. I’ve sat on chairs before and I BELIEVE that they will continue to carry my weight when I sit down. It’s an induction based on previous experiences (premises). I think you could say I have a strong argument for my faith in chairs. All I’m saying is that you believe your inductions, we believe ours. Science is not a cornerstone of deduction. And yes, I would need more evidence to infer that viruses evolve toward a greater complexity.

“finding (erroneous) loopholes in evolutionary theory does not by default automatically validate creationism” — I know this

“try getting your information from more than one book, it’s so in these days” —Haven’t I? I read my genetics textbook cover to cover…among others

@Paul

“So when our ancestral apes had their genetic codes change so much that the great apes and man arose out of that change, you accept that too.” —No actually, that’s where we disagree…which is why I posted this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/discontinuity

@Zen Faulkes

Hey I agree that some biologists are aware that creationists understand (admit?) genetic change occurs. But I’ve also met some that don’t understand this. I think you’ll agree that this article is in the latter category. Which is why I pointed it out.

Creationists think that there isn’t enough evidence to claim that one type of animal can transform into another. It comes down to a problem of genetic information (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-mutations-the-engine). Mutations are rare. Beneficial mutations are more rare. Beneficial mutations that increase/create information (borrowing a little from information theory) are argued to exist. But they would have to exist in large, large numbers for evolution to occur.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that animals descended from common ancestors that were designed? I find that this fits the evidence better. Of course, you’d have to allow for a designer.