Evolutionism: A theory(?) built & sustained by ignorance & deception
Charles also thought the cell was a "blob or glob of protoplasm" as that was the current thinking of his day. IOW due to the constraints of their technology scientists were virtually ignorant of the contents of living cells.
It was easy to make up scientific sounding stories because no one knew any better. Today we do.
Today we know there isn't any data that demonstrates bacteria can "evolve" into anything but bacteria. However there is plenty of faith that at some time in the past bacteria-like organisms did indeed "evolve" into a more complex single-celled population (the alleged "evolution" of eukaryotes), which then magically colonized (or not) and differentiated.
Heredity was empirically demonstrated by a Creationist Monk. Promoters of Darwin's ideas took Mendel's findings and twisted them to fit their PoV. What Mendel demonstrated is that traits can vary- traits, as in the color of your eyes, hair, your height. IOW even though humans vary significantly in outward appearance, ie traits, they are still human. (Accumulating mutations may give us a short, blue-eyed, anemic (SCA), red-head with detached ear-lobes…)
Variations of an already existing population does not explain the origin of the population.
Now, when we look at the several meanings of evolution, the deception is clearer:
The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education:
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations.
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
The deception is when evolutionists "sell" evo #6 with data from evos 1-5. Bacteria's ability to gain resistance to anti-biotics is perhaps the most often cited example of "evolution". Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? In a word- No.
Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.
So why is it used? Because evolutionists want to pretend that any alternative to their precious "theory" is that absolutely nothing changes. IOW ANY change at all is evidence for evo #6. The thinking is that those small changes accumulate to eventually equal the alleged great transformations (as presented in the PBS series "Evolution" show 2).
Do small changes plus time = large changes?
If one desires to extrapolate small changes into large changes by simply adding time, one requires independent evidence to justify this move. The problem is that we really don't know how evolution occurs. And when talking about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones, we should not forget that we are still basically in the dark in trying to explain how both a mammalian and reptilian zygote actually develops the middle ear and jaw bones, respectively. Without this knowledge, attempts to explain such a transition as a function of a series of small, incremental changes stretched across time are rooted in ignorance. That is, we don't truly understand neither the process of development nor the process of evolution and without such knowledge, there is no reason to think we are on safe ground when employing (1).
Attempts to justify this move by appealing to the use of (1) in astronomy and geology fail because biotic complexity differs in both structure and formation.
One may assume (1) to explain evolutionary change as a working hypothesis, but we should keep in mind that large changes in evolution are basically a "black box" and a series of small incremental changes may play only a trivial, fine-tuning role in any transition (there is no evidence to think otherwise). What's more, bacteria, as the predominant life forms on this planet, which have experience the most evolution of all life forms, tell us clearly that (1) need not apply to biological evolution.
In the end, appeals to small change + deep time are embraced merely as a matter of convenience, as it happens to be the primary way we can think about evolution at a time when we are just starting to come to grips with it. As we begin to better understand the process of evolution, I predict (1) will one day be viewed as a quaint understanding that served mostly to highlight just how much we didn't understand evolution.
What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :
Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
Ignorance is evolutionism's best tool. Evolutionitwits somehow use the "power of ignorance" to influence the social-political dynamic of some of the otherwise greatest countries on this planet. Sorry guys but "science" done via promissory notes is not science at all. Once people understand the debate your gig is up. I take it that is why evolutionitwits ALWAYS revert to personal attacks and other diversionary tactics- such as table pounding:
"When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table." (unsure of the origin)
Also read Talk Origins: Deception by Omission