Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2018 7:11 AM
172 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, RAZD, Son of Man (4 members, 168 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,419 Year: 17,242/29,783 Month: 1,230/1,956 Week: 227/506 Day: 32/131 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universal common descent even in a young Earth
extremophile
Member (Idle past 3549 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


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

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 4 (236686)
08-25-2005 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by extremophile
08-22-2005 5:25 PM


Something new
I don't think this has been brought up this way before.

Where do you think it should go -- on the science side or not?

Where in which ever side you pick?

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extremophile, posted 08-22-2005 5:25 PM extremophile has not yet responded

  
extremophile
Member (Idle past 3549 days)
Posts: 53
Joined: 08-23-2003


Message 3 of 4 (236928)
08-25-2005 4:12 PM


I think I didn't get exactly what you're asking me...

Is it about the proper forum and/or the general way that I want the discussion to proceed? I haven't thought of that. I think that if "biological evolution" includes the sorts of biological evolution accepted by creationists, then it should go there.

Then the line of discussion would be how is possible to biologically defend unrelatedness of the "kinds", what would prove or refute that.

Recently I've known that creationists have a thing they call "baraminology" which is more or less like creationist systematics, they try to figure which are the original kinds, but taking as granted that life is polyphyletic. I think that it would be an interesting discussion how we can reach this conclusion based on biological evidence that matters, not just accepting the bible.

But if "biological evolution" is supposed to be restricted to discussion only whether "mainstream" evolution is true or not, then it should go to "miscellaneous".

The other thing I guess you may be asking is if I'm not suggesting that it somewhat makes macroevolution unfalsifiable (so it wouldn't be in the "side of science")... but definitely isn't that, the point is that it's falsifiable and proven true. Also that a young age of the Earth solely wouldn't be a refutation, even less if you're a young Earth creationists who supports that all the lifeforms we see evolved absurdly rapidly in the last 3000 years.

If you aren't asking any of these things, I'm totally lost, sorry :)

This message has been edited by extremophile, 08-25-2005 04:13 PM

This message has been edited by extremophile, 08-25-2005 04:17 PM


  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 4 (236996)
08-25-2005 6:50 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018