Why do evolutionists have to lie to support evolution?

[uk_mikey]

No...I am sure everyone here is a second-handed smoker. Don't lie!

Lie?.. that's rather strong... Hey, it was a joke!
Anyway, I don't go anywhere where people smoke, as it's illegal to smoke in public places or any building where people work, and I don't go to bars, where it will also be illegal to light up from next month. So, even if you remove all intended humour from the post, it wasn't a lie

Not everything has to do with God existing or not but it also helps progress science. Creationists don't think God used evolution so they propose a literal translation. You cannot disprove or prove God by science alone. To do so would require philosophical arguments and inferences on that scientific data. Facts do not speak for themselves. A global flood for example, if the data warranted it would not prove that God exists. However some do argue for the accuracy of the Bible in terms of history and science.

Yes, I understand that. My comment was purely about the personal pitfalls of trying to prove or disprove the existance of God at all.
It's interesting to discover and to argue the scientific and historical evidence, on a practical level.

 

[The Barbarian]

Suppose ... you had a finely tuned racing car, and you stood ten paces from it and fired repeatedly with a shotgun : how likely is it that you would improve its performance ? It is extremely unlikely that we should in one short lifetime ... observe a new and good mutation that has never before occurred in any part of the world.

Interestingly, that issue has been addressed by engineers. And it works. They don't try to destroy the engine, but rather they do it the way evolution works. They use a computer to simulate random changes in the engine, and then they only keep the ones that improve it, and use these for the next population, and let them randomly vary again. Repeated over many generations, it produces better engines.

Computer-aided testing in engine research is nothing new. But how about using Darwinism to improve diesel
design?

Using a combination of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), genetic algorithms and advanced visualization, scientists at Convergent Thinking, an engineering firm in Madison, Wis., have furthered their quest for a better diesel engine.

Genetic algorithms are mathematical operations most commonly used in biological studies to explain and predict the Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest for a particular gene in a group of organisms. Convergent Thinking has adapted this practice for diesel engines, substituting physical parameters within an engine for genes.
http://www.ensight.com/images/stories/application_stories/convergent.pdf

The best and brightest engineers are turning to Darwin for the next generation of engines. The dumb ones are being left behind, as usual.

 

[Andre1983]

55117050

55117050

The process of causing mutations by bombardment with radiation has been described by Hardin as follows :

Suppose ... you had a finely tuned racing car, and you stood ten paces from it and fired repeatedly with a shotgun : how likely is it that you would improve its performance ? It is extremely unlikely that we should in one short lifetime ... observe a new and good mutation that has never before occurred in any part of the world.9

This was the first part I reacted to.
We cannot compare natural mutations to radiation.
Natural mutations are taken to trial: They have to survive one more generation in order to "survive".

Thus a series of mutations surviving 100 generations, let's say a total of 200 000 mutations, will result in a healthier species than if we applied 200 000 mutations to 100 fertilized cells and let the grown-up products breed among themselves.

The number of mutations we have in most living creatures' systems today have proven to be better than a inerronous copying system and it is better than a higher amount of mutations.

So no one has ever been able to observe a "good" mutation. Despite this surprising lack of data, there is almost universal agreement that they do occur. In fact, their existence is needed in order for Natural Selection to be able to cause evolution. As Hardin writes :

... undesirable though mutation may be from a humane but shortsighted human point of view, it is.in the long run the primary creator of hereditary novelty on which the process of evolution depends.

And Cooke echoes this thought with the following :

This, then is how evolution has proceeded over billions of years, slowly selecting out good mutants that help strengthen a species, killing off the detrimental mutants which can't compete.

And Kendrew adds :

Ultimately, such a mutation (occasionally advantageous one) might be incorporated permanently into the books of life of that species. Such is the process of evolution.

This is true.
Can you see the 2000 mutations most every person has?
No-- most of them are hidden.

Only the worst mutations can be seen: Severe cases of cancer, syndromes (duplications of entire chromosomes; ie.: Down's Syndrome) et cetera.
Mutations that give us slightly better resistance to a specific disease or better process of thought are most impossible to detect -- yet these two features will help the mutated individual in surviving and mating.
(Though, we cannot expect humans to evolve very much, as we're not subjected to natural selection: Everyone can have as many kids as they want and we take care of the severely debilitated and their children. Humans are actually running a risk of devolving or becoming hive-minded.)

SUMMING UP
We have reviewed some of the major findings about evolution and about life. In this process we have learned some interesting facts :

1. Cells are the basic building block of life, are extremely complex, and are absolutely vital to all reproduction, including that of viruses;
2. Development of multicelled creatures from an initial egg cell is a process so complex as to be virtually unknowable;
3. The making of most of the organic materials needed by the cells is done within the cells themselves using "patterns" stored in the genes;
4. Conversion from the gene patterns, which are the physical sequence of their nucleotides (DNA sequence), is done according to the "Genetic Code", which is the same for all life forms;
5. Proteins made by the cell are unique to each type of life form, despite the fact that cells typically make thousands of different proteins;
6. Evolution takes place due to Natural Selection of forms that are better fit to survive, but needs to select from improved characteristics which come from mutation of the genes;
7. Mutations are copying errors which occur during gene replication, and are increased by radiation, chemicals and heat, but no one has ever proved the existence of a "good" mutation.

1- Agreed
2- Disagreed
3- Agreed, though I didn't like the wording
4- ...
5- False -- We have yet to map DNA from all creatures, and humans and chimpanzees share proteins. (Only humans and chimpanzees have complete genetical maps so far.)
And 20% of our proteins are identical.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1464121
We have also found identical genes in men and mice (as mice are beeing mapped):
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=05fc858a69f53c439d94a15a07a3c461

6- True -- but you make it sound so melancholical and fated...
7- Nothing is erronous -- the more fault-free copy-systems have been eaten by the evolving copy-systems...
So unless you call change error, mutations are not errors... it works exactly as it should; it causes improvement over time when subjected to natural selection.

A PROPOSAL
It is likely that the instructions in the genes of a cell are equivalent in complexity to a very large computer program containing millions of instructions. Previously, we talked about the fact that copying errors sometimes occur when genes are reproduced. But errors are also sometimes introduced when large programs are copied. The similarity of the two situations is so remarkable that it has suggested the following principal :

This is called data corruption...
And will in most cases invalidate and produce a memory leak, resulting in a program or computer-crash...

Sets of instructions with equivalent information content will have an equivalent likelihood of being improved by random change. --- Bob's Theorem

This is true, but the comparison is invalid:
Changing of the 4-number-system base pairs can cause improvements or cause deterimental effects, changing of binaries in computers will result in them breaking down: Computers have a limited amount of pre-defined numerical sequences that are valid, and all others are invalid.
Genes have no valid or invalid sequences; they only produce living or dead creatures, where the living will have a grand favor over the dead regarding natural selection.
Most changes in DNA go unnoticed, most* every change in a computer program will invalidate it.
*(This is true for the coding and scripting part: Changes in media-files are the exception. Changes in a music file may cause a ripping high-pitched sound or a clicking sound. Changes in a picture file may simply change one color to another, or cause the entire picture from the damaged bit and onward to be warped. In movie files copy-errors may lead to artifacts; unnatural shapes on the screen that shouldn't be there.)

Surely, a computer program that is clever enough to duplicate the process of human embryo development has to have an information content equivalent to that contained in the genes! And if it is so, then we could experiment on this program by changing its instructions at random to see if this would "improve" the developing embryo which the program is simulating. Realistically, the problem could be approached in easier stages. We could first test a simple program to see if random changes would improve its operation, and observe how many trials it would take to achieve it. Then we could try more complicated programs , finding out by actual experiment the relationship between program complexity and the number of trials needed. Perhaps the results could even be calculated using mathematical techniques. Either way, it should be possible to establish whether "good" mutations are possible, and thus answer the question whether copying errors can lead to "good" mutations.

You cannot change the code of a program, the program has a perfectly coded purpose that cannot be improved (Unless you improve it in one session), thus there cannot be any middle-ground and no generations like with life: You will need a program that simulate life, and change the parameters for how life is rendered in the program.
Which has been done -- the main problem beeing how the heck we simulate natural selection without a natural mean of selecting. Most often, we will have to settle with ants that start out moving forward, allowing them to produce behavior scripts that let them find food and change directions when they hit walls.
(Ie: We can only simulate single- or few-celled organisms due to the sheer amount of information. Should we have 100 000 ants or bacterea mutating and moving in a small screen with a full genetical map of 100 000 000 symbols? That's almost all of the world's home-computers...)
No matter what we program, the artificial creatures will evolve only using the programmed codes; they cannot make functioning new computer-codes like creatures can make new proteins... They have to add two pre-defined codes together.
It's not impossible to simulate single-celled intelligence -- but that won't allow for testing evolution...

CONCLUSION
We have pointed out the similarities between the operation of the cell and the operation of the computer, and showed how the information content of their similar sets of instructions could be the same. Bob's theorem was stated as the principle that sets of instructions of equal information content will have equal likelihoods of being "improved" by random change. And finally, we proposed that this likelihood be studied experimentally by using carefully selected computer programs as laboratory "guinea pigs".

Alas, the needed similatities are not there.
One is a liquid system; DNA -- the other is a concrete system.

-- Changes or additions in the liquid systems result in a different fluid --
-- Changes in concrete result in holes that only can be repaired by applying new cement --

Thus, the only way to use computers to simulate evolution is to make a program that make changes to an existing "object", and have criteria for what is best and a way of testing the object for likelyness to these criteria.
Though, it is almost fruitless to use tests such as these:
How in the hell are we to claim that evolution of computer-simulated objects are another evidence for evolution when the criteria are man-made and the program made to push objects toward these criteria?

Regardless of that problem, we would have to subject the "objects" to millions of "hazard-tests" simulating a life-span -- and without hundreds of thousands of individuals all mutating randomly, there wouldn't be any ground for calling it natural selection nor evolution.

The best way would be to have 100 000 computers running one program simulating one object with X mutations through a million *different* hazards, before the 80% best out of the surviving are spread to every computer at random...

Past experience would lead one to believe that it would prove fruitless to try to improve a computer program by making random changes to its instructions. But why should we guess at the answer? Why not do the experiments and find out for sure? Who dares take up the challenge?

That is true: You cannot change programs with randomness as they're already set to their ultimates -- or to a working state that is backed up by codes refering to other codes in so many ways that the changing of one 1 to 0 or one "A" to a "B" would invalidate it. When improving scripts it's most often best to rewrite them from the start.
I've programmed so many scripts that do not compile (have logical errors that prevent them from working if compiled to a program) -- and most often the errors are a capital letter or lack thereof, or an object that refers to another object where the name-tags are wrong -- or where the name-tags of codes refer to the wrong object or wrong type of object...

Let us make a simple comparison:
AT-- 16 bit from a mouse DNA coding a part of the red blood cell
AG-- 16 bit from human DNA coding a part of the red blood cell
TG-- 16 bit from squid DNA coding a part of the red blood cell
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 (example) -- 16 bit from a computer that works
0000 0000 0000 0100 0000 (example)-- 16 bit from a computer that doesn't work
0000 0100 0000 0100 0000 (example)-- 16 bit from a computer that doesn't work
1000 0000 0000 0100 0000 (example)-- 16 bit from a computer that doesn't work
0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 (example)-- 16 bit from a computer that doesn't work

Nothing else than the one right code will work for computers, everything that doesn't kill the creature it builds will work for DNA.

 

[Skeptic]

Such a concept is not properly defined as a "lie" in this instance. You are unscrupulously changing your definition of the word midway through your posts. One moment, to you a lie is a deception, a malicious attempt by evolutionists to proverbially pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorant masses. The next moment, to you a lie is an error, a false statement sincerely believed by a great many people.

A "lie" is not a lie when the person telling the "lie" believes it to be true. This is an error.

I suggest you either correct your terminology or cease your deliberate deception on basis of word selection.

Despite his claim that he should have worded it differently, Bob's use of "lie" in the title of this thread fits a pattern of deliberate deception designed to paint evolutionists in a negative light.

Here are some of Bob's thread titles to support my claim:

Editor of Nature institutes open warfare against Christianity.
(as if the editor really wanted to wage such warfare)

The evolution game is up!!!
(as if evolutionists are playing a game)

Is macroevolution a form of paganism?
(as if evolutionists were a bunch of pagans)

Why Evolutionists Can't Be Neutral
(as if evolutionists cannot follow the scientific method)

The lie at the "shrine" (Darwin's house)
("Evolutionists apparently need to engage in lies ("straw men") in order to try to discredit scripture and to support their failed theories.")

Scientists *must* have a theory.
(as if scientific theories fulfill some emotional need of scientists)

Spin doctors needed.
(as if evolutionists are simply spin doctors)

Evolution Inhibits Science Progress
(as if evolutionists are anti-science)


Here are some of Bob's recent statements:

"You evolutionists seem to fit a pattern: never directly address a subject, instead try to obfuscate by misquoting or partially quoting. You are a classic example of the genre."
(as if evolutionists never directly address a subject)

"The dishonest thing about evolutionists is citing papers that we do not have access to."
(as if evolutionists often do this intentionally)

"And of course evolutionists never consider the possibility that the evidences that they think support evolution could be interpreted differently."
(as if evolutionists do not allow for alternative scientific explanations)

"One problem that evolutionists have is that they refuse to consider any possibility than evolution and cannot see that much of the evidence they believe supports their theory also supports the creation theory as well."
(as if evolutionists stubbornly refuse to consider alternative explanations)

"But if an evolutionist makes an error, why it is eventually corrected, because 'that is how science works', so it is not cricket to ever point out any errors made by evolutionists in the past."
(as if evolutionists do not point out such past errors)

"Yes, genes and other structures are being found in unexpected places in the 'tree of life'. It takes great storytelling ability to explain this. But that is something that evolutionists have honed their skills on these many years."
(as if evolutionists are merely great storytellers)

Evolutionists only assume that changes that occur over time are due to random mutations plus natural selection.
(as if evolutionists run around making unsupported assumptions)

"Evolutionists typically believe YECs are stupid."
(as if most evolutionists believe YECs are stupid, as opposed to misinformed)

"I will admit that evolutionists are better at making up stories than most people. This is probably because this is mostly what they do for a living and 'practice makes perfect' as the saying goes."
(as if evolutionists simply make up stories)

"As I have said many times TOE predicts nothing. Evolutionists do have general expectations, but nothing in detail. Whatever they find 'proves evolution'. All one needs is a good story."
(as if evolutionist predictions are not supported by evidence, but are just "good stories")

"It amazes me that evolutionists claim they have tons of evidence for evolution (descent from a single primitive lifeform) but when you ask them to give their best evidence they are strangely quiet and try to change the subject."
(as if evolutionists do not routinely present their empirical evidence, and try to change the subject when confronted)

"Evolutionists have carefully kept such material from being carbon dated, probably because if it turned out that some C-14 was still present it would be evidence that the fossil was not millions of years old, but only thousands of years at the most."
(as if evolutionists have carefully conspired to do this)

"It doesn't 'bother me' because I have come to expect 'stories' instead of science from evolutionists to explain inconvenient facts."
(as if evolutionists invent stories to explain their evidence)

"That is par for the course with evolutionists who always prefer to badmouth the Bible."
(as if evolutionists always badmouth the Bible)

"Evolutionists like to change the subject when asked for evidence for their belief that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell."
(as if evolutionists usually try to change the subject when confronted with questions about abiogenesis)

"But this is par for the course among evolutionists, who consistently publish all sorts of misconceptions about ID."
(as if evolutionists often publish lots of misconceptions about ID)

"Evolutionists and cosmologists have been very successful in convincing the vast majority of other scientists that they know what they are talking about when in comes to how the universe came into existence, how life began, how the sedimentary layers were formed and the nature of the fossil record."
(as if evolutionists and cosmologists don't really believe what they have been saying)

"Macroevolution has become so much of a dogma that evolutionists are unable to see the forest for the trees, even when it is staring them right in the face."
(as if evolutionists uncritically adhere to dogma and do not critically evaluate the evidence using the scientific method)

"Evolutionists say that variation can lead to much bigger changes, and that even men were once fish."
(as if evolutionists claim that men were once fish)

"So while some of the information an evolutionist has may well be good information and true (and we have to be careful not to call them liars), his conclusions about that information are probably wrong, and I have learned enough to know that."
(as if Bob is careful not to call evolutionists "liars" and he has learned enough to know that their conclusions are wrong)

 

[Johnny]

Skeptic, those last two quotes are Bob quoting someone else! Just a heads up.

 

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, those last two quotes are Bob quoting someone else! Just a heads up.

I could be mistaken. ... I'll go back and check.

Thanks!

 

[BalanceofJudgement]

I am currently doing a bioscience degree and as far as I can see evolution is so obvious that I could work it out for myself just from starting from the ground up

 

[Ktoyou]

I think Bob’s original post does suggest that the Article was a lie if one believes evolution is a lie and the creationists always believe in a 6000 year old earth. Of course I am guess, as all I can do is read the post and interpret it the best I an able.

It seems one may be a creationists and believe the earth is over 6000 years old, so, the assumption that all creationists believe in a young earth would be a lie.

I personally believe that humans did not evolve from apes.

At the same time, I think there is much strong evidence, which supports the idea that life existed on earth for more than 6000 years.

I read Ann Coulter’s book “Godless” and was disappointed, first in her analysis of the nature of secular theology and her analysis of evolution being an outright fraud. Her books, Treason” and Slander” were better. The best book which examines the ‘secular theocracy, is Paul Gottfried’s “Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy”

Although Gottfried does not deal with evolution.

 

[Quincy]

i just dont get why people cant connect the lines between science and religion. science explains how things happen. religion explains who and why. take the story of adam and eve. they evolved. they changed from primal to being knowledgable. science cannot disprove there is a god, and religion never fully explains the actions of a god. combined i think both make a complete story.

 

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, those last two quotes are Bob quoting someone else! Just a heads up.

Yep. You're right. ... My mistake.

I think, however, there's still plenty of evidence to support my contention about Bob.

 

[Paine]

i just dont get why people cant connect the lines between science and religion. science explains how things happen. religion explains who and why. take the story of adam and eve. they evolved. they changed from primal to being knowledgable. science cannot disprove there is a god, and religion never fully explains the actions of a god. combined i think both make a complete story.

The trick is that the scientific method finds no valid evidence to suggest the existence of the supernatural. If we are capable of finding testable, material explanations for the "why" of the universe, then what reason should we have for the fabrication of spiritual explanations?

 

[Evoken]

Ah, welcome back Paine.

 

[macguy]

Haha, what happened to Paine...just curious. Welcome back!

 

[Quincy]

The trick is that the scientific method finds no valid evidence to suggest the existence of the supernatural. If we are capable of finding testable, material explanations for the "why" of the universe, then what reason should we have for the fabrication of spiritual explanations?

i used to be heavily against the supernatural and spiritual, the farthest my beliefs went was in residual energies. nothing of an actual entity of a spirit. but i saw and experienced some things that changed my tune. which all lead to a hobby of mine currently hehehe. but what u say makes sense to me. i used to live by that style of belief. but because of things i experienced and saw i to begin to fathom how spiritual entities and reasoning could make sense to me.

do you claim to know why the universe is here scientifically? i mean why did the big bang take place per se? im curious as to ur beliefs. me personally, i happen to just think nothing as itself is nothing. its not possible literal nothing can exist. doesnt make sense to many but me, but what the heck.

 

[Paine]

do you claim to know why the universe is here scientifically? i mean why did the big bang take place per se? im curious as to ur beliefs. me personally, i happen to just think nothing as itself is nothing. its not possible literal nothing can exist. doesnt make sense to many but me, but what the heck.

I do not claim to understand the theoretical scientific mechanics behind the big bang (if it indeed is an accurate description of the origin of our present universe), but I have no reason to attribute spiritual explanations to its occurrence. I have seen nothing in this world to convince me that there is any other reality beyond the reality we are capable of observing and testing scientifically.

 

[Skeptic]

i used to be heavily against the supernatural and spiritual, the farthest my beliefs went was in residual energies. nothing of an actual entity of a spirit. but i saw and experienced some things that changed my tune. which all lead to a hobby of mine currently hehehe. but what u say makes sense to me. i used to live by that style of belief. but because of things i experienced and saw i to begin to fathom how spiritual entities and reasoning could make sense to me.

It is unfortunate that unusual and impactful personal experiences can often suspend one's disbelief in the irrational. Would it not be better if people were more skeptical of the causes of their unusual personal experiences and tried to rule out all possible natural explanations for their experiences, before jumping to supernaturalistic conclusions?

It seems that you were quick to arrive at your conclusions. There are probably more rational explanations for your experiences.

do you claim to know why the universe is here scientifically? i mean why did the big bang take place per se? im curious as to ur beliefs.

Science cannot answer why the universe exists. But neither can religion give a rational answer. I prefer to live with an unanswerable question than jump to an unverifiable conclusion simply because it sounds nice or makes me feel good.

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, American physicist

me personally, i happen to just think nothing as itself is nothing. its not possible literal nothing can exist. doesnt make sense to many but me, but what the heck.

The best answer I can come up with to the question of why anything exists at all is:
Why not?

 

[bob b]

I have already confessed to Johnny that the title was misleading.

I didn't take sufficient time to reconcile the conflicting goals of making the title short enough to be a title, and the need to make it clear that I was using "lie" in the sense of something that is not true, but that the people who repeat it are probably unaware that it is not true.

If we all submitted our postings to "peer review", I am sure that many misunderstandings like this could be avoided.

Of course there would be a downside to that approach too (who would bother posting?).

 

[Skeptic]

I have already confessed to Johnny that the title was misleading.

"Evolutionists have to lie" is hardly misleading. It's clear what you were trying to say. I think you are now being misleading as to your true intent of the title.

I didn't take sufficient time to reconcile the conflicting goals of making the title short enough to be a title, and the need to make it clear that I was using "lie" in the sense of something that is not true, but that the people who repeat it are probably unaware that it is not true.

You know very well that most people consider "lie" to mean a false statement made with the deliberate intent to deceive.

You said: "Is evolution so weak that it must resort to lies to counter its opposition?"

This clearly implies that you think evolutionists have to deliberately make statements they know to be false, in order to counter their opposition.

If we all submitted our postings to "peer review", I am sure that many misunderstandings like this could be avoided.

This is not the first time you have accused evolutionists of lying.

"Evolutionists apparently need to engage in lies ("straw men") in order to try to discredit scripture and to support their failed theories." -- source

Bob, consider yourself "peer reviewed" by those in this thread who have called you on your "lie" rhetoric. Stop using the word, unless you are explicitly calling someone a liar.

Of course there would be a downside to that approach too (who would bother posting?).

Yes, you would be less inclined to post your ad-hominem attacks against evolutionists.

 

[noguru]

"Evolutionists have to lie" is hardly misleading. It's clear what you were trying to say. I think you are now being misleading as to your true intent of the title.

You know very well that most people consider "lie" to mean a false statement made with the deliberate intent to deceive.

You said: "Is evolution so weak that it must resort to lies to counter its opposition?"

This clearly implies that you think evolutionists have to deliberately make statements they know to be false, in order to counter their opposition.

This is not the first time you have accused evolutionists of lying.

"Evolutionists apparently need to engage in lies ("straw men") in order to try to discredit scripture and to support their failed theories." -- source

Bob, consider yourself "peer reviewed" by those in this thread who have called you on your "lie" rhetoric. Stop using the word, unless you are explicitly calling someone a liar.

Yes, you would be less inclined to post your ad-hominem attacks against evolutionists.

But Skeptic Bob is impervious to logic and peer review.

 

[bob b]

But Skeptic Bob is impervious to logic and peer review.

Actually not true. If you have a good case I will say so.

In this case I admitted to Johnny that he was correct that the title was flawed.

The reason I used the word "lie" was to emphasize that many of the arguments used by evolutionists are lies. The fact that those who repeat the lies may not realize that they are lies means only that they are not themselves liars, but merely dupes.

But a lie is still a lie, and many of the arguments are lies.

The real question is: who or what was the original source of the lie of evolution?

And why do so many otherwise intelligent people repeat the lie?

------

If I had thought about the title a bit longer I would probably have said: "Why do evolutionists have to use lies to support evolution?

Ans. Because the hard evidence to support their case is insufficient, so they repeat things that they learned by rote that frequently make little sense.

In the case at hand it really is not a scientific argument to imply that evolution must be true because some in the Church once taught that God created all lifeforms in a perfect state and they have never changed since then. All that proves is that humans are fallible, which is obvious.