Message 1 of 4 (235645)
08-22-2005 5:25 PM
Attacking dating methods or defending somehow that the Earth is young seems to be the logic strategy to arguing for young Earth creationisms.
But it in fact turns out creating another trouble for young Earth creationisms that in order to scape from the ark space problem (how all the living kind-species fitted inside the ark and were supported there for about one year by only eight people) proposed that all living species do evolved in the last 3000 years from a few ancestors taken in the ark, two of each kind, where "kind" isn't a synonym of "species" as it's in classical Christian creationisms, but a group that has "genetic potential" to evolve into lots of species, but yet fixed in a lesser degree.
It fails as an attempt to save fixism, because the assumption that evolution can proceed so fast, plus the assumption that the Earth is young, only leads to the conclusion of universal common ancestry in a young Earth. How come an evolution assumed as capable of producing millions of recent species in the last 3000 years, wouldn't be capable of producing a dozen of "kinds" in the former 3000 years? At least 3000, but some defend that Earth has about 10.000 years, what would give 7000 years to a few kinds evolve from a universal common ancestor. Seems time more than enough if evolution is that quick.
Because all the evidence of relatedness are still there. We still can defend only one tree of life, whereas if it actually not existed, we would expect to be possible to construct lots of drastically different trees, with equal sustainability. Only one is just too much of a coincidence.
The only way out would be to point why all canids (or whatever is said to be a "kind") are biologically related to each other, while that's not the same with all caniformia (or whatever is the edge of a "kind"). But the same logic that points the smaller group as biologically related would also point that the larger one is biologically related too. As far as I know, original "kinds" are merely arbitrarily chosen.
Other thing is: if animals evolved from post flood accordingly to their "genetic potential", and just a couple of each "kind" evolved into lots of species, the same wouldn't have to be true with humans too? And humans would probably have more "genetic potential" as they were 8 on the ark, while for all the other kinds there was only a male and a female, presumably smaller "genetic potential". (Although I admit that I ignore who had "met" who after the ark, so it could turn out that was like if there as only one man and one woman)
That leads back to a Comte de Buffon-like "involution", or "devolution" (although would still be more accurate to just say "evolution", but that's how I use to see it generally referred), with all the other primates being descendants from the humans that survived on the ark.
Unless the biological edges of "kinds" are pointed, these are the most reasonably conclusions from the assumptions of high-speed evolution and young Earth. To not do that is just pure biblical fundamentalism.
It's funny that YECs proposed this high-speed evolution trying to save the maximum of biblical fundamentalism, while it actually makes possible and far more probable universal common descent, even in a supposedly young Earth.
So, concluding: is completely worthless to young Earth creationisms that accept high-speed evolution to only argue for a young Earth if what they want is to prove independent origins of the "kinds".
That would only make sense in classical-fixism creationisms that see evolution as slow or nonexistent, but for those the question of how all the recent species fitted in the ark is still a problem among all the others.
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 08-25-2005 4:13 AM|| ||extremophile has not yet responded|