Search This Blog

Sunday, February 03, 2019

Evolutionary Fitness and Genetic Entropy

In serious discussions, having the proper definitions is extremely important. This is especially true in discussions of origins. We can be lassoing a discussion and find out that we are understanding key words differently, thereby talking past each other and not communicating. Proponents of goo-to-grammarian evolution befog the issues with vague definitions and even nonsensical words.

Evolutionists befog origins issues with nonsensical and vague terms. One reason for this is to dodge the evolution-refuting, creation-affirming concept of genetic entropy.
Illustration showing influenza virus attaching to cell membrane via the surface protein haemagglutinin.
Credit: CSIRO / Health Sciences and Nutrition / (CC by 3.0) (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Evolutionists frequently refer to "natural selection", a fake science term which implies that some entity in their pantheistic worldview exists to do the selecting. Related to that is "survival of the fittest". If you study on that one, you'll see that the fit ones survive. It has been pointed out that this term means "survival of the survivors" because only the fit survive, so it is nonsense.

They will also "see" evolution even when it is not actually happening, such as in "reductive evolution". This is where organisms adapted to an environment but lost certain traits (evolution worked backward) and they would not be "fit" in other environments. For that matter, "fitness" is a subjective term that is determined by scientists and especially by the evolutionary narrative. Using weasel words is a convenient way to dodge the evolution-refuting, creation-affirming concept of genetic entropy.
Most people, including most influential evolutionists, talk about survival, as if the length of life is important. An organism can be perfectly successful if it dies during a single reproductive episode (e.g. salmon) or if it survives to reproduce throughout a very long lifetime (e.g. oak trees). Thus, “survival” is irrelevant. It is not “survival” of the fittest, but “propagation” of the fittest that they are talking about. This is Darwin’s fault, initially, but evolutionists have been muddying the water ever since. We will show you several examples of how they do this below.
To read this extremely interesting article in its entirety, click on "Fitness and ‘Reductive Evolution’".