The YEC's most common error?

So what is the false statement most frequently repeated by young Earth creationists? Evolution violates 2nd Law? There are no transitionals? Evolution is unscientific? Perhaps even that Science itself is just a faith system like any other?Not in my experience.There is one false statement made by every single YEC I have encountered - "I accept microevolution"Well, cobblers. They don't. None of them do. Let's ignore the part about all observed genetic diversity within kinds appearing in the few thousand years since the absurd fairy tale that is Noah's global flood - though I know of no evolutionary theory consistent with this, I concede that may be due to a failing in my knowledge. So let's get straight to business.In order for the statement 'microevolution is true and macroevolution is false' to be testable, one must provide a rigorous distinction between the two. For creationists, this cannot be done without precisely defining the term 'kind'. Now, perhaps there are creationists out there who can actually supply an unambiguous, meaningful definition - but I haven't encountered any. Not one. So the YEC position I am familiar isn't even wrong - it is simply meaningless.To YEC's I say - you accept microevolution? Yeah, right. Give me a rigorous definition of this theory you claim to accept. Then we'll talk. Without such a definition, your position is utterly devoid of any meaningful content.To all others - I submit that when YEC's claim to accept microevolution, they are in fact engaging in sophistry. They hide behind semantics, and propose their own cariacature of evolution, never providing sufficient detail to make their position clear and unambiguous.So - while I often find myself asking YEC's to provide rigorous definitions of many words - kind, information, order etc. - more and more I find myself asking a rather simpler question - give me your definition of evolution?In the struggle for accurate, meaningful discussion, one can never underestimate the importance of the fundamentals.------------------[This message has been edited by MartinM, 09-26-2002]

MartinM,You may very well be right,I am currently arguing that human/ himp Urate Oxidase pseudogene is evidence of common descent at Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online. (with others). Of course, such an event, that would cause broken genes in two lineages is microevolution, right? Wrong, not when it involves humans.......Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"In order for the statement 'microevolution is true and macroevolution is false' to be testable, one must provide a rigorous distinction between the two. For creationists, this cannot be done without precisely defining the term 'kind'."
--MicroEvolution - Evolution over short periods of time
--MacroEvolution - Evolution over long periods of time--[Edit] - Short of time, more later------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 09-26-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--MicroEvolution - Evolution over short periods of time
--MacroEvolution - Evolution over long periods of time

​

---

Unless you're willing to put numbers to that, it's meaningless. But I'll be interested to see what else you come up with when you have the time.------------------

As I said in http://EvC Forum: HELP! -->EvC Forum: HELP! .

quote:

---

The situation of YECism's conflict with science is not so much the Creationism part, as it is the Young Earth part.

---

I think this is much at the root of YEC's recognition of a false division between "micro" and "macro" evolution.Moose

"Unless you're willing to put numbers to that, it's meaningless. But I'll be interested to see what else you come up with when you have the time."
--Its difficult to put 'numbers' on it, mostly as it pertains to time. However a distinction from the two can be addressed.
--Microevolution is simply a change in the relative frequencies of alleles in a population over a number of generations. Macroevolution is evolution which marks the main events in the evolutionary history of life. The amount of total differentiated evolution may be a good factor in distinguishing what is a 'main event' in an evolving population, however.--For a YEC there is only a marker for the evolution of species from the Flood era to the present as paleontology is quite useless in constructing an evolutionary history without data.
--For the mainstream, the geologic column represents uniform evolutionary development through long periods of time rather than a 'freeze framed' compilation of the biosphere.------------------

It could violate it if we had been able to close the system with respect to 'violations" of panmixia but we have been unable to say how Crick mistuderstood the criticism of VITALISM which is what is what at leas t WAS violated. See my up and coming book review for the mice and men in this audience in the book nook next week.

"give me your definition of evolution?"
--Change through time. (Biological, Cosmological, geological, etc.?)"In the struggle for accurate, meaningful discussion, one can never underestimate the importance of the fundamentals."
--I agree.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"give me your definition of evolution?"
--Change through time. (Biological, Cosmological, geological, etc.?)

​

---

Gradual adaptation to changes in one's environment over time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"give me your definition of evolution?"
--Change through time. (Biological, Cosmological, geological, etc.?)

​

---

​

Gradual adaptation to changes in one's environment over time.

---

Evolution - A change in the environment, over time, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"give me your definition of evolution?"
--Change through time. (Biological, Cosmological, geological, etc.?)

​

---

​

Gradual adaptation to changes in one's environment over time.

---

​

Evolution - A change in the environment, over time, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

Moose

​

---

Same difference. 6 of one and half a dozen of another.

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
Evolution - A change in the environment, over time, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

Moose

---

Interesting Moose...I like this. It puts everything into the same system, instead of implying two different systems-- one for organisms and one for the environment.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I didn't object to either TC's or nos's definitions, I just unified them.In the biggest picture (as we scientificly know it), the universe and the environment are one and the same.Every "component" is a subset of a larger environment.nos's definition (Gradual adaptation to changes in one's environment over time) covered organisms responding to their external environment. But, indeed, to some small or large degree, the external environment also responds to the influences of the organisms.It's all a vast, complex combination of feedback loops.Moose

"It's all a vast, complex combination of feedback loops."
--Agreeable, mine was simply taking the definition down to a basic form with room to concur with any & all known entities.------------------

Without having read all of this thread here is a mainstream distinguishment of micro/macro (micro is 'allelic', macro involves large scale change):Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.
Erwin DH. Evol Dev 2000 Mar-Apr;2(2):78-84
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - PubMedIf anyone can't see the differnce bertween allelic changes (eg type A blood and B blood - a handful of aminoacids) vs whether we have or don't have hemoglobin at all then ask me and I'll educate you.That is micro vs macro.And if anyone thinks I am being too molecular then I'll educate you on that too (we are made of molecules will be the gist of the answer).The evolutionists most common error is exemplified by this thread (sorry MartinM): thinking that getting a novel allele is in some sense not differnt from getting a novel enzyme pathway.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-29-2002]