To deny evolution is to deny that change occurs

[Zzyzx]

.
To deny evolution is to deny that change occurs

Nature is not static. Change is apparently inevitable. Mountains change, plants and animals change genetically (both usually, but not always, very slowly).

What we observe in a moment or a lifetime is a tiny “thumbnail� snapshot of the overall picture. Even the entirety of recorded history is an insignificant time relative to Earth time. If in analogy we use the Encyclopedia Britannica to represent Earth time, recorded history is comparable to part of the last page of the last volume. Individually we see in a lifetime about the last two letters of the last word in that example.

Why resist change? Short answer: comfort zone – staying with what is familiar. However, the down-side is that any organism, or idea, that resists change or refuses to adapt (change) become obsolete and/or extinct.

Some religions propose that an unchanging supernatural entity created things “as-is�; however, reality teaches that things change over time. Apologist's own favorite religion changes over time – whether they admit it or not.

[bluethread]

One can affirm change without accepting the theory of "evolution". Change need not take the form of "progressive" biogenesis. There are many theories of alternative change, varying from the transition to AI or bionics to the extinction of man and the rise of the insects. The call for adaptation is, at best, a crap shoot. For example, the call for a reduction in the burning of "fossil fuels" may be resisting some inevitable change. Indeed, if one accepts inevitable "evolution", as Shlomo says, "all is vanity".

[Zzyzx]

.

One can affirm change without accepting the theory of "evolution".

Genetic change IS evolution – by definition (“genetic change through generations�).

Many religionists seem opposed to the concept of genetic change, perhaps because it conflicts with their notion that living things were made “as-is� by their God.

Change need not take the form of "progressive" biogenesis.

Biologists / geneticists do not regard genetic change as “progressive�. The term may be added by those who do not study the filed and oppose on emotional grounds.

There are many theories of alternative change, varying from the transition to AI or bionics to the extinction of man and the rise of the insects.

Adaptation, in the biological / genetic sense, means ability to survive and reproduce successfully in the environment.

The call for adaptation is, at best, a crap shoot.

Are biologists / geneticists calling for “adaptation� by humans genetically?

Where does “crap shoot� come into play?

For example, the call for a reduction in the burning of "fossil fuels" may be resisting some inevitable change. Indeed, if one accepts inevitable "evolution", as Shlomo says, "all is vanity".

Changes in the environment, whether due to human actions or not, DO change conditions for living things. That has nothing to do with “vanity�.