Biblical Creationism Requires Evolution

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 questionEdited by Admin, : Minor fixes, run spellcheck, change title.

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.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

It's edited now

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

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

Haven't you heard about superevolution?YouTube video of the Creation Museum displayThey 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 not true”new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.

---

This is the essence of my argument in Evolution and the BIG LIE thread. The only real disagreement is the number of common ancestors. 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.

---

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

quote:

---

Worse: the period of superevolution was only a couple hundred years after the big wash and rinse cycle.

---

In an article titled The non-transitions in ”human evolution’-on evolutionists’ terms, creationist John Woodmorappe writes:

quote:

---

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 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!

{5 word superfluous snide remark "hidden" - Stop it. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

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:

---

This panel from the museum assumes that the ark had one pair of apes and all the ape species that we see today are descended from this one species. One species splitting into multiple species, hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like evolution. But, it's more than that, it's superevolution.

---

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.

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.

First off.... Hola everybody.Now:

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

If, for example, about .1% (reference below) of the genetic difference between dogs can happen in about 4000 years....

---

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!Iesous
Christos
H
Theos
H
Uios
Sotos

I think this might be off-topic, so I'm going to be really brief. 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.

quote:

---

That's the role of mutation - the piece that you left out of your analogy.

---

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.

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

Ichthus writes

quote:

---

Second, when has a mutation ever been beneficial to an organism.

---

Anti-biotic resistant strains.