What's wrong with people? can be asked from the Christian and creationist point of view too, but such things get answered by those who have the POWER to answer them according to their own opinions, not necessarily those who have the truth.
I'm trying to work out what you mean by that... You seem to be saying: From the Christian and creationist point of view, the question "What's wrong with (non-Christian, non-creationist) people?" gets answered by those who have the POWER to answer according to Christian/creationist opinions, not necessarily those who have the truth. Did I understand you right? If so, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Evolutionists think anything done in the biological sciences confirms evolution
Right - and this line of thinking is based on the fact that all available observations of real-world evidence point to this conclusion. For instance, the particular details of DNA evidence that serve to establish paternity are of the same type, with the same truth value, as the details that establish the fact that all primates have a common ancestor, as do all mammals, as do all tetrapods. In order to deny the latter relations, you also need to deny the evidence used to establish paternity across a single generation.
... but most of it describes only microevolution which creationists regard as normal variation through built-in alleles.
And the existence of ring species is something that causes creationists to abandon or deny logical, evidence-based thinking.
... they refuse to recognize that depleted genetic diversity is the necessary end result of evolutionary processes...
And that's because it would be a serious mistake, going against all observation, to assert that "depleted genetic diversity is the necessary end result of evolutionary processes." That's not something that can be "recognized", because that isn't what the evidence demonstrates.
autotelicadj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
"Now can someone explain to me how this and worse can be still going on in the 21 century."
Unless every single individual gets a quality education (i.e. free from all this controversey over teaching what not, what I mean is teaching EVERYTHING) will everyone see the error in certain ways of thinking. This, of course, is impossible.
Something I notice when looking through creationist literature is the self-contradiction between the creationist explanations put forward to find fault with the scientific explanations. When focusing attention on just one topic at a time these contradictions aren't as noticeable. Only when you collect them all, do you begin to see that this creationist explanation contradicts that creationist explanation over there.
post 407
how selection and isolation reduce genetic diversity which defeats the very idea of evolution
This seems to be a recurring post, how the founder effect reduces genetic diversity, of course only by denying beneficial mutations, however rare. This is a direct contradiction with the idea that all mankind sprang from Adam and his cloned wife Eve who had very limited genetic diversity, a single pair that together had no more genetic diversity than a single individual.
How do you explain all the genetic diversity that presently exists in the human population in 6,000 years time??
quote:Young-earth creationists such as Answers in Genesis will doubtless claim that this research supports their claims that humans, Neandertals, and other archaic hominids all form one species. However, it's a lot harder to see how all the necessary population events can be squeezed into 10,000 years. Starting from Adam and Eve, humans apparently populated Africa, Asia and Europe, then some of them left Africa, picked up some Neandertal genes from the Middle East, then populated the world again, with some of them picking up more genes from the Denisovans and going on to populate Melanesia. Somehow, this emigrating group was also able to cause all the other humans to become extinct. At some point a flood occurred, killing all but 8 humans and removing most of the genetic variability. It would be tempting to assume the flood took care of removing the Neandertals and Denisovans, but that would leave the problem of explaining how their genetic contributions made it into the modern world. Supposing one person on the ark had Neandertal genes, and another Denisovan genes. The Arkers then had children who would have married each other. How could it happen that Africa ends up with the greatest genetic diversity, and yet none of the Neandertal and Denisovan genes are found there? Meanwhile, the Neandertal genes managed to find their way into all non-Africans, while the Denisovan genes found their way into the Melanesian population, but nowhere else (if 8 people populate the world, how can one of those people account for 5% of the genome of 0.15% of the world's population?). This scenario seems, to put it mildly, hopelessly improbable if not completely impossible.
Here's another good one. In the creationist artlcle, "The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’–on evolutionists’ terms," by John Woodmorappe, we find the following:
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man–all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.
What if this wonderful bit of creationist “science” was actually correct? It would have the following implications, most of which run contrary to what creationists generally claim:
The change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, 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 to 5,300 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would 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 proposed such a change themselves, but see it several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!
™ Version 4.0 Beta
