Adaptive Evolution Without Natural Selection Summary

Good Essays

In an effort to simplify the complexities of the scientific landscape, it goes without saying that humans inadvertently rely on observed and calculable data nearly every day. From the basic function of respiration; to an intern statistician at ESPN which calculates next-gen-stats; and furthermore to a Nano-technician altering particles at an anatomic level, different scientific fields are taught, researched, and practiced with respect to making life a little easier on you and I. There are, however, proponents of various fields – one such being evolutionists – that depend on science retrospectively to attain enough data to conclude what previous walks of life might have been like. Throughout the world there are entire fields devoted to the Scottish …show more content…

There are two varieties of evidence as theistic evolutionists present: visual sightings which have sparked hunts all over the world and transitional fossils such as Lucy. Kalevi Kull is particularly taken by these two ‘proofs’ – as she labels them – and, in an article titled Adaptive Evolution without Natural Selection, discusses the strengths of both. The beauty behind her explanation of natural selection as “Evolution of Plasticity” suggests that evolution is easily molded by the surroundings, which would be showcased in the two varieties of evidence. The shortcoming for the first claim is that the supposed visual sightings have never been either confirmed or denied. Blurry photographs and pixelated videos make an interesting case, but there has yet to be one which has been set apart as definitive evidence. As for fossils such as Lucy, which point toward a transitional period between early primates and humans, they are harder to analyze. Again, as Fowler revealed, some believe it could be the missing link while others remain on the fence or deny it altogether. Those steadfast in their faith lean toward the latter option as we will uncover …show more content…

Theistic evolutionists concur that God placed the world in motion but disregard the personal creation of mankind in Genesis. Instead they suggests that non-living organisms transformed into living, breathing organisms. In the collaborative article An Archaeal Origin of Eukaryotes Supports Only Two Primary Domains of Life, written and edited by Tom Williams, Peter G. Foster, Cymon J. Cox, and T. Martin Embley, this group of scientists accredit creation to eukaryotes and prokaryotes. This claim holds the potential to alter the entire backdrop of the purpose of faith in

Get Access