Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?

Excuse me but Creationists have known that the Created Kind was above the current species level for over 200 years- Karl von Linne is credited for that.What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that. If we knew the answers we wouldn't need science. What is certain is at the time of the original creation the created kinds would have been the same as species. However once new niches were found variants of the original would form. This would be due to the adaptive ability designed in to the organisms. However just because variations can form doesn't mean new body plans can come about.As for "all the evolution" involved in the Creation model of biological evolution- ya see when a population already has the necessary genetic information all it takes is a little reshuffling. I know this is confusing to most evolutionists, just like their "explanation" of where the genetic information came from in the first place is confusing (or rather non-existant) to us.[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-15-2003]

Excuse me but Creationists have known that the Created Kind was above the current species level for over 200 years- Karl von Linne is credited for that.NosyNed:
Oh, this is news to me. I didn't know the issue had come up that far back.Could you offer some references and more details on this?John Paul:
I am sure it is news to you. Most evolutionists don't even know what is being debated. That's not meant to be a slam, it is just an observation.
References? Well Linne, a Creationist, was looking to define the created kind when he originally came up with binomial nomenclature. It was after research that he concluded that the Created Kind was more at the level of Genus.What is certain is at the time of the original creation the created kinds would have been the same as species.NosyNed:
LOL, of course they would be the same as species. There isn't anything BUT species (although there is fuzz in when something is a new species and when it isn't). All higher taxa are just groupings of species for convenience.John Paul:
The definition of species is still pretty fuzzy.What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that.NosyNed:
So we have this big argument about variation "within kinds" but creationists don't know what they are? When you have a bit more detail sorted out then you can make statments about what has and has not happened.John Paul:
There is a basic idea. What I meant (and I know I should be more specific) is that we don't know exactly what they were. Do you know exactly what the alleged first population was in the evolutionary scenario? Or was it populations? I mean by your logic we can't know if we evolved from a common ancester if we don't know what it was.As for "all the evolution" involved in the Creation model of biological evolution- ya see when a population already has the necessary genetic information all it takes is a little reshuffling.I know this is confusing to most evolutionists,...NosyNed:
So if there is only a "little reshuffling" between existing species then they have come from one created kind? Is that what this means? Can you put some quantitative values on "little reshuffling"?How much reshuffling is needed before it is not "little" anymore? What causes the reshuffling? What evidence for it is there? What consitutes "reshuffling"? Is it just the recombination of genomes? What part do new mutations play in this "reshuffling"?John Paul:
What we do know is that reshuffling does not bring about any novelty. That is why "random mutations" had to be added. This is basic genetics NosyNed.NosyNed:
Gee, sorry about all the questions but since it turns out creationists don't know what "kinds" are I thought I would see if they have a clue about what "reshuffling" is.John Paul:
As I have said, we don't know exactly what they were. If we did we wouldn't need science. However if you would like you should read some of the articles at AiG. Natural Selection vs. Evolution | Answers in Genesis Also there is a book available:ForbiddenYa see NosyNed for all of your questions evolutionists still can't answer this one:
What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the range of changes they insist have occured?

I don't know the timeline of the flood. I don't believe the timeline some creationists do.
However if the horse representatives were as genetically diverse as possible than yes it would be entirely possible to get the variations we see today. As I have said, the creation model does not require new genetic information to arise. All that is required is the existing information to get reshuffled and then become fixed. Also we have a different view on what evolution is. That is why the theory is ambiguous.

Science doesn't suggest that, some scientists do. Big difference. Ever read Woese? There wasn't one common descedent. Science and scientists disagree with you.Variations are very different than the evolution you believe in. There isn't any evidence to support the alleged "great transformations" required by the ToE.

The alleged "great transformations" as discussed in the PBS series Evolution- which was given the thumbs up by Eugenie Scott & Ken Miller (and others).What is the intermediate between a single-celled organism without a nucleus and a single-celled organism with a nucleus?What is the intermediate between single-celled organisms and multi-cellular organisms?True there are a variety of eyes but is there any evidence to show that one can evolve from the other?Too bad the fossil record doesn't show anything resembling step-wise change. That is why punctuated equilibrium came about.

Zephyr you may feel it is a silly insult however my experience shows it is an observation. I have had many evolutionists try to tell me what Creationists say- that is stasis, as in no change, which is total BS.References? Do you want me to do your history homework?from Carl Linnaeus :In his early years, Linnaeus believed that the species was not only real, but unchangeable -- as he wrote, Unitas in omni specie ordinem ducit (The invariability of species is the condition for order [in nature]). But Linnaeus observed how different species of plant might hybridize, to create forms which looked like new species. He abandoned the concept that species were fixed and invariable, and suggested that some -- perhaps most -- species in a genus might have arisen after the creation of the world, through hybridization. In his attempts to grow foreign plants in Sweden, Linnaeus also theorized that plant species might be altered through the process of acclimitization. Towards the end of his life, Linnaeus investigated what he thought were cases of crosses between genera, and suggested that, perhaps, new genera might also arise through hybridization. Where is your reference that recombos/ rearrangement can bring about novelty? Are these alleged novelties akin to eyes from the eyeless or just different colored eyes?As for pre-existing conclusions that is exactly what evolutionists do! They conclude that organisms did evolve from some unknown population of organisms and tghen look for evidence to support it. They also have the pre-existing conclusion that purely natural processes are all there is. They lead the evidence.I love your "just-so" story about the eye. Evolutionists are fond of generalizations. Thank you for keeping up the good work. Talk about assertions! LoL!
However they are usually at a loss to come up with any details. That is why the ToE is a useless theory.

Rei:
"As genetically diverse as possible". Um, we're talking about only a pair of them surviving the flood. That's a maximum of 4 alleles per gene. In 200 generations, you're proposing that such horses split to the differences in horses and donkeys.John Paul:
That is not correct: Natural Selection vs. Evolution | Answers in Genesis The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017.F.J. Ayala, The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American 239(3):48—61, September 1978, quoted on page 55.

Just-so stories and assertions are not to be confused with evidence- scietific or otherwise. I have heard & read the stories. I know about endosymbiosis (Lynn Margulis).There isn't any evidence of a bi-cellular organism.Thye point being there isn't ANY evidence an eye can evolve. There isn't any evidence a sensitive light spot can evolve. And there surely isn't any evidence a vision system can evolve. These are all beliefs.As for the fossil record and punk eek, I was answering another poster. Please try to keep up.

Coragyps:
And this would be the reason that his first edition of Systema Naturae (1758) classified the chimpanzee as Homo troglodytes? Because humans and chimps are the same Created Kind?John Paul:
If you had been following- at FIRST he thought the species level, ie troglodytes, were the created kind. With further research he changed. That is what scientists do. They need a starting point then develop their ideas. Linne did that. As a Creationist he knew humans were a Kind all to ourselves.

Slime molds? How many times does this have to be refuted? Slime molds produce, guess what? Single-celled organisms! Go figure.Your eye story has been refuted- read "Darwin's Black Box" by Mike Behe.We now know enough of micro-biology to know that the genes governing fin development are not the same genes that govern limb development in tetrapods. If the ToE were indicative of reality then homolgy would extend down to the microbiological level. It doesn't.Fancy sayings and slogans are not evidence either. When all you have are generalizations it is time to give up or start filling in the vast blanks.

Two individuals but how many sex cells?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a Creationist he knew humans were a Kind all to ourselves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rei:
He knew it so well that he wrote the opposite, and changed it only under pressure.John Paul:
Any evidence to support your assertion?The numbers didn't copy correctly it should be 2 to the 6700 power or 10 to the 2017 power.

I can't believe you linked to Lindsay's website! He, as are all evolutionists, are guilty of "gross anatomy". IOW you haven't any details jujst assertions. If you want to impress try something from a peer-reviewed journal. Lindsay and Dawkins have been refuted by Behe.[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-16-2003]

Please , zephyr, what is testable AND repeatable about the ToE? Surely not the alleged single to multi-cellular evolutiuon. Definitly not the alleged evolution of eukaryotes.Willful ignorance? That defines most evolutionists. Again nothing depends on us believing all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate. I am NOT saying that the knowledge that things can change is not helpful. Surely it is. Please don't confuse one for the other.How did that light sensitive spot come about? You do realize that the eye is only 1 part in the vision system....

IC has been shot to pieces? By evidence or more "just-so" stories? Any links? Behe has refuted all critics. Go figure...Behe's argument from ignorance? Well it looks like evolutionists are ignorant. He was basing his book on their research/ lack thereof.Fossils say nothing of a mechanism. The fact that there are terrestrial fossils at all screams of catastrophes. Which goes against gradualism. And also calls in to question the age of the strata.