Change Over Time and Evolution

[Furrowed Brow]

In the thread Evolution Vs Creation Fisherking quotes a Dr Jonathon Sarfati and supplies this link to the full text.

Sarfati is disturbed by what he sees as equivocation by evolutionists. In fact he thinks they perpetuate a deceit regarding the General Theory of Evolution of GTE.

A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven.

But the implication throughout is that without the GTE, it would be impossible to understand that:

All living things reproduce.
Offspring are similar to but not exactly like their parents.
Offspring have to grow up (or change; e.g., metamorphose) before reproducing themselves.
There is a fit between individuals, or species, and their environment (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic, aerial). …
Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.

But understanding these concepts does not depend on the GTE.

Sarfati is I think attempting to say that understanding “change over time” does not require invoking common descent or what might be dubbed macroevolution.

So is Dr Sarfati correct. Is it possible to understand “change over time” without the "General Theory of Evolution"? Are evolutionists guilty of deceit?

Safati then has a specific complaint.

The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)….. To claim that mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE .

So if I read Sarfati right, the GTE is not necessary for understanding change over time, and in fact invokes a specific type of change. A type of change he thinks is problematic.

So are evolutionist introducing unnecessary problems for understanding change over time?

[Goat]

I will review the info you provided on the other site, I am assuming that he is anti-evolutionary?

In regards to those you list however, who has researched or been in involved with the human genome project? Who has genetically mapped species to link them to prior species? Who has disproven the genetics sequences, the DNA evidence to show that evolutionists are making the information fit into what they biasly believe? And exactly why would they do this?

He is even a YEC. He became a 'born again christian' when he went through strong marital problems.

The analogy's he is fond of have been blown away 1000's of times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford