Creationists, why isn't selective breeding a part of evolution?

Answer 1

Acutally MACRO evolution-the changing of one species of animal into another and reproducing (not crossing breading animals which leads to infertility...even in plants) Has NEVER been proven, no one has ever found the MISSING link.

Micro evolution does exsist-which is why there are some cultures with slanted eyes and some with oval, some with pale skin, some with dark skin why some races are short and stocky and some are tall and gangly, and why there are variations of different animals and plants in different parts of the world, because everything was created to adapt to its surroundings.

Answer 2

You do not need to be a creationist to recognize that selective breeding is a part of evolution and happens all the time.
Look again for the first time.

Regards
DL

Answer 3

It may be part of it, but without the benefitial mutation which creates a more complex organism there is no evolution. There is just variety in species of the same type as they were created. And when the species were created their genes held a lot more information, so as the world ages the information decreases.

Answer 4

Natural selection is not evolution. It just preserves what's already there. Its like quality control at a car factory. As the car goes through the line, defective parts are detected, removed, and replaced. But even if the line corrects 100% of the mistakes, the cars don't become airplanes.

Answer 5

oooh, the car factory accidentally puts wings on a car. Nobody wants wings on their cars, so the car doesn't become an airplane. But wait, somebody does want wings on their cars, and the wings are so cool, the car has a bunch of lady cars begging him for sex. Soon there are a lot of freaky cars with wings and since the wings help the cars avoid traffic, the freaky cars have more time to fill up at the gas station and more importantly more time to have sex. and make more freaky cars with wings. Eventually somebody tires of the laborious periphrasis and decides to just call freaky cars with wings "airplanes". QED

Answer 6

yet they are not "random mutations". The selective breeding makes use of genes that exist already interior the animal. Selective breeding purely brings them out. Hugo deVries (1848-1935) exchange right into a Dutch botanist and between the three adult males who, in 1900, rediscovered Mendel’s paper on the regulation of heredity. sooner or later mutually as working with primroses, deVries theory he had got here upon a sparkling species. This made headlines. He actually had discovered a sparkling sort (sub-species) of the primrose, yet deVries conjectured that perhaps his "new species" had all quickly sprung into life as a "mutation." He theorized that new species "saltated" (leaped), it is, consistently spring into life. His concept is named the saltation concept. This exchange right into a sparkling concept; and, in the process the 1st 0.5 of the 20 th century, many evolutionist biologists, looking actual no information helping "organic selection," switched from organic selection ("Darwinism") to mutations ("neo-Darwinism") because of the fact the mechanism by using which the theorized bypass-species adjustments happened. with the intention to coach the mutation concept, deVries and different researchers as we communicate began experimentation on fruit flies; and it has persevered ever considering that—yet completely without fulfillment in generating new species. mockingly, deVries’ saltation concept exchange into in step with an observational blunders. In 1914 *Edward Jeffries got here upon that deVries’ primrose exchange into purely a sparkling sort, not a sparkling species. many years later, it exchange into got here upon that maximum plant varieties are produced by using changes in gene components, not often by using mutations. those brought about by using gene changes could be good (inspite of the reality that not as good because of the fact the conventional unique), yet those varieties produced by using mutations are consistently vulnerable and have a poor survival value.

Answer 7

Wow Good Question!

Answer 8

also, where does the bible talk about very evident gene mutations which cause changes in a population?

the 'macroevolution can't be proven' shtick is long dead. that weak argument has been disproved over and over again, especially as of late.

Answer 9

are you confused about creation or evolution ?

Answer 10

OK, what's the punch line, clown?