A Very Simple Question For Creationists

[whirlingmerc]

Another fun fact

when I was in grade school they said grasses came tens of millions of years after dinosaurs
today.... surprise surprise.... about 6 types of grasses were found in dino tummies
oops

 

[Reggie Miller]

Another fun fact

when I was in grade school they said grasses came tens of millions of years after dinosaurs
today.... surprise surprise.... about 6 types of grasses were found in dino tummies
oops

Another example of scientists guessing wrong. Surprise, surprise.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yes, I am still waiting for a good explanation for the "kingdom split."

An organism had to have evolved to the point where it's DNA somehow mutated to the point that it split into animals, plants, fungi, viruses, etc. or at least into plant and animal.

Which organism evolved into the plant and also somehow evolved into an animal? Surely a plant didn't evolve into an animal or vice versa so some organism had to have evolved into both somehow. Exactly how and why did that happen?

well... lots of hand waving and dotted line connecting by speculations regarding the big things

non life to life
single cell to multi cell
exoskeleton to endoskeleton
a sexual to sexual
reptile to bird
ape to man

and lots in between
that are more speculation than theory

caterpillar to butterfly
animal synergisms like bees and flowers...
mouth cleaning fish and large fish
etc...

 

[Reggie Miller]

well... lots of hand waving and dotted line connecting by speculations regarding the big things

non life to life
single cell to multi cell
exoskeleton to endoskeleton
a sexual to sexual
reptile to bird
ape to man

and lots in between
that are more speculation than theory

caterpillar to butterfly
animal synergisms like bees and flowers...
mouth cleaning fish and large fish
etc...

Now go back and tell us exactly how and why those specific genes mutated. Oh, and be specific, this is science we are talking about, not some vague list a child could come up with.

 

[whirlingmerc]

On the subject of genes... the father of genetics was a creationist

Interestingly there are genetic hot spots where some genes mutate faster than others and when
Neanderthal is compared to various apes and also to modern human, the Neanderthal hot spots match modern human.... ape hot spots quite different

Additionally we used to see a lot of aggressive claims about similarity of ape to human and over time that value drops and also has wide variation in who reports why so? Because in the past the samples were so contaminated by human skin flakes so the more modern tests have lower and lower correlations, additionally there is a fudging game where the human DNA project is used as scaffolding to match monkey DNA where the scaffolding comparison is pretty iffy, additionallly lots of things like 'junk dan' or vestigial organs where the truth is we find purpose in both and remarkable purpose. Cherry picking what you count left unrealistically high correlations. Good science... well... no not really.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If you believe that small changes can occur within a species so as to slightly alter its population, a process commonly called microevolution, which is accepted by many creationists, and that these changes can well be cumulative over many, many years (say thousands), why can't they eventually culminate in an organism so different from the original parent as to be a new species?


.




.

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

He is a strict atheist so they are exclusive to him.

 

[Skwim]

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

Creationism and macroevolution are.


.

 

[savagewind]

Creationism and macroevolution are.


.

I don't agree.

God causes change. I believe good change does not happen without a miracle.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, macroevolution remains an unsupported claim. I agree.

Else give me an example of macroevolution.

Ring species.

 

[savagewind]

Ring species.

I think I understand ring species but given the number of different species and the relatively short time involved, it isn't an adequate explanation imo.

 

[savagewind]

Which species did the first life form that came out of the water mate with?

 

[Skwim]

I don't agree.

God causes change. I believe good change does not happen without a miracle.

So when a person changes jobs for the better it's a miracle? When a person changes to a better car it's a miracle? When summer changes into fall it's a miracle? When the phases of the moon change it's a miracle? Kind of leaves the concept of miracle rather bereft of significance don't ya think?.


.

 

[savagewind]

So when a person changes jobs for the better it's a miracle?

Might be sometimes.

When a person changes cars it's a miracle?

No, never. God gave us feet.

When summer changes into fall it's a miracle?

Absolutely I believe the beginning of it was miraculous.

When the phases of the moon change it's a miracle?

I'd call that a byproduct of a miracle

Kind of leaves the concept of miracle rather bereft of significance don't ya think?.


.

I was referring to the theory of evolution.....but you know that. Haha

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think I understand ring species but given the number of different species and the relatively short time involved, it isn't an adequate explanation imo.

Why not?

It's an excellent demonstration as to how speciation can occur.

 

[savagewind]

Why not?

It's an excellent demonstration as to how speciation can occur.

I would not call it "excellent" for the reason that a sterile species emerges eventually and always.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would not call it "excellent" for the reason that a sterile species emerges eventually and always.

What? No it doesn't.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is something wrong with your theory because it has no beginning.

Do you hold other scientific explanations to that same standard?

If God is the beginning of life then God is the reason for the different species.

Yes, if we just assume so.

You @Jose Fly say, "That makes as much sense as saying that since chemists can't explain the origin of the first elements, the whole field of chemistry is bunk." and "So your position is, no one can say anything about the evolution of any species or trait until they first explain the origin of all the elements in the universe?" I view that as you saying it is your way or NO WAY. That is called black or white. I see you reasoning that if something isn't white, it is black. I think that the only kind of people who think like that about evolution vs creation are the people who believe in the Bible (even before God, imo) and who take all its words literally.

No, you have it backwards. The black/white thinking is from those who argue that either biologists can explain everything, or they can't explain anything.

In this case, you are arguing that unless scientists can fully explain the origin of life, then they cannot say anything at all about its subsequent history. That's black/white thinking.

The argument from a believer in God's point of view is that YOU seem to say, "God is impossible".

I am not saying, "evolution is impossible".

I am saying that life is a miracle and could not have possibly arrived without help.

Science has not found out what is helping it.

Go ahead and say it! Are you thinking, "it needs no helper!"?

That is where we disagree.

I've never said "God is impossible". And yes, you are saying "life is a miracle", but hopefully you realize that merely saying something is so does not make it so.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's what I said you said. How is that dishonest?

Because it's not what I said. Duh.

Go ahead and support macroevolution since that's your area that you believe in.

Again, macroevolution is evolution of new species, which has been repeatedly observed and documented in different taxa.

Fruit flies

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic Drosophila with descriptions of two new species. - PubMed - NCBI

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization under laboratory condition in Drosophila: evidence for recombinational speciation. - PubMed - NCBI

Whiptail lizards (in the lab)

Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species

Cichlids

Speciation via introgressive hybridization in East African cichlids? - PubMed - NCBI

Cicadas

Reproductive character displacement and speciation in periodical cicadas, with description of new species, 13-year Magicicada neotredecem. - PubMed - NCBI

Chronic speciation in periodical cicadas. - PubMed - NCBI

Yeast

Hybrid speciation in experimental populations of yeast. - PubMed - NCBI

Bacteria

Septic arthritis caused by a gram-negative bacterium representing a new species related to the Bordetella-Alcaligenes complex. - PubMed - NCBI

There's more, but the point has been established.

From your link, AIG says in the big, bold title, "Species and Kinds Are Not the Same" which makes you look foolish in front of everyone here.

Huh? How?

Go ahead and explain what it means to evolution. Then give me an example of a "new species has been repeatedly observed and documented."

Done.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Some aspects are ok... survival of the fittest, changes due to the environmental changes, effects of the fall...

But I don't agree with theistic evolution and I have problems with the gap theory as well