|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNaturalist Member (Idle past 5714 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Biblical creationism claims that there was one form of life for every category of life (which might mean, say, genus, family, even species, but its hard to know; it wasn't clear, like everything the bible claims).
However, since there is so much genetic difference between species (and even subspecies) of most types of life, there would have to be considerable change in the genome of most species in an extremely short period of time. If I'm not mistaken, this time amount is 4,000 years (the "flood" supposedly happened about 2,000 years after the supposed development of Earth and the universe I think). However, look then, at the future. If, for example, about .1% (reference below) of the genetic difference between dogs can happen in about 4000 years, then it might only take, say, about 40,000 years for a 1% change in the genome, which is almost the same difference between humans and chimpanzees. So, if creationists believe that all of life variety happened within about 4,000 years as the bible says, then they would have to accept evolution anyways. According to this website:
There are 2.5 million single nucleotide polymorphism differences in some pairs of dog breeds. If so, then since there are probably less than 3 million nucleotides in the dog genome(since humans have 3 million nucleotides in their genome, and I doubt dogs' genomes are as complex as the human genome), then there has to be about .1% difference (1/1000 difference) between some dog breeds. Edited by TheNaturalist, : Because I was told to, that's why. Now stop asking question Edited by Admin, : Minor fixes, run spellcheck, change title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Could you give your proposal a proof-read and fix the places where the grammar or formatting is a little rough? Also, to turn a URL into a real link, just put "http://" in front of it. Click the edit button at the bottom of your message. Post a short note to this thread when the edit is complete and I'll take another look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheNaturalist Member (Idle past 5714 days) Posts: 86 Joined: |
Could you give your proposal a proof-read and fix the places where the grammar or formatting is a little rough? Also, to turn a URL into a real link, just put "http://" in front of it. Click the edit button at the bottom of your message. Post a short note to this thread when the edit is complete and I'll take another look. It's edited now
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
So, if creationists believe that all of life variety happened within about 4,000 years as the bible says, then they would have to accept evolution anyways. Yes and the type of evolution would have to be macromacroevolution.given that about 1.5 million days have occured since the supposed flood that would mean that for beetles, if there was one beele kind, there would have to be a new species evolving every 6 days to reach the ~250,000 species of beetles currently catalogued. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes and the type of evolution would have to be macromacroevolution. Haven't you heard about superevolution? YouTube video of the Creation Museum display They also have to use speciation to reach the diversity of life as we know it.
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use: "No new species have been produced.":
quote: This is the essence of my argument in Evolution and the BIG LIE thread. The only real disagreement is the number of common ancestors.
if there was one beele kind, there would have to be a new species evolving every 6 days to reach the ~250,000 species of beetles currently catalogued. Worse: the period of superevolution was only a couple hundred years after the big wash and rinse cycle. So evolution doesn't happen and evolution\science is wrong, creation is right and evolution happens rapidly? Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: In an article titled The non-transitions in ”human evolution’-on evolutionists’ terms, creationist John Woodmorappe writes:
quote: What if this wonderful bit of creation “science” was actually correct? It would have the following implication (which runs contrary to what creationists generally claim): It would mean that the change from modern man to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would thus require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man! This is in spite of the fact that most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only admitted that it does occur, but they see it occurring several hundreds of times faster and in reverse! Superevolution indeed!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
not superevolution but super absurdity {5 word superfluous snide remark "hidden" - Stop it. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In an article titled The non-transitions in ”human evolution’-on evolutionists’ terms, creationist John Woodmorappe writes: Worse still is that creationists don't agree and that this does not worry them (they just want something to prove evolution wrong). From the "superevolution" link above:
quote: The picture shows "Lucy" in the ape lineage and no speciation in the human lineage at all. (Of course they also misrepresent the current scientific thinking, but we know they don't like\understand that anyway - the place is full of falsehoods, so what's one more?). Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Creationists and pretty much everyone accepts evolution in terms of heritable change. I am surprised you did not realize this.
The argument is whether microevolutionary processes are sufficient to create macroevolution, and whether the data supports universal common ancestry, etc,.... But the YEC arguments I have come across argued for more rapid evolution "within a kind" since the Flood. They argue, for example, you could have only one bear kind that evolved into all the different types of bears. I think they argue for 2 Cat kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
First off.... Hola everybody.
Now:
quote: Please try this (in your head, because it would take a really long time to do this). Take a regular 52-card deck. Shuffle the deck a couple times, then lay them out in a 8x6 rectangle. Place the extra four cards in the left two columns. Take a picture. Suffle the deck again. Lay the deck out again in the 8x6 rectangle again. Take a new picture. Repeat until you're satisfied that there are the exact same cards in every iteration. Notice that the cards are always the same in every sequence. There will always be one ace of spades, one five of diamonds, two black jacks, and four tens. No matter how many times you do this, the numbers will never change. The order in which the cards are in will change because of the shuffleing, but the numbers won't. This illistrates Natural Selection, which selects from existing genes. It will never create new ones. So, with this in mind, you wouldn't need the same 1% difference in dog genes as the 1% difference between humans and chimps. No matter how close chimps are to humans, they will never blend because natural selection cannot produce the needed genes to change a chimp to a human. So, you'd only need the 0.1% difference in dog genes that you mentioned to produce the amount of species, not the 1% between two differant animals.
quote: So, the differance in dog types can be created in the 4,000 years since the flood. Thanks for the opportunity for a first post! IesousChristos H Theos H Uios Sotos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I think this might be off-topic, so I'm going to be really brief.
Notice that the cards are always the same in every sequence. There will always be one ace of spades, one five of diamonds, two black jacks, and four tens. No matter how many times you do this, the numbers will never change. The order in which the cards are in will change because of the shuffleing, but the numbers won't. This illistrates Natural Selection, which selects from existing genes. It will never create new ones. Except that this doesn't actually illustrate natural selection. Only if (to really stretch your faulty analogy past the breaking point), for example, "tens" had some kind of advantage over "nines", and more tens appeared after the next round of shuffling at the expense of nines (for instance), would this be an example of NS. If it makes you feel better, you're right that NS doesn't create new genes/alleles. That's the role of mutation - the piece that you left out of your analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5876 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
quote: First off, thank you for not insulting me along with providing a fault with my logic. I appreciate that. Second, when has a mutation ever been beneficial to an organism. Last I checked, environmentalists continue to close nuclear plants (such as Trojan in Washington) because the mutations are hurting fish in the area, not creating better, more apt to survive fish. Also, over 50 years of fruit fly breeding expiraments, even with added effort to increase mutation rates, they've never been able to change the fruit fly to something other than a fruit fly. It has always stayed as a fruit fly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Your questions seem to all be straight from creationist talking points.
Try this website for concise answers to these, and many more, such questions:
Index to Creationist Claims
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5829 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
Ichthus writes
quote:Anti-biotic resistant strains.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024