Just how much evolutionary change do creationists accept?

[Jose Fly]

Just over the last few months, I've seen one creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic class is nothing more than "microevolution" and no big deal, another creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic family is just "adaptation" and no big deal, other creationists insist that no one has ever seen a new species evolve, and other creationists insist that no evolutionary change happens at all, ever.

So what's the deal creationists? Can any of you clear this up?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were just making things up as you go along.

 

[Enoch07]

Just over the last few months, I've seen one creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic class is nothing more than "microevolution" and no big deal, another creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic family is just "adaptation" and no big deal, other creationists insist that no one has ever seen a new species evolve, and other creationists insist that no evolutionary change happens at all, ever.

So what's the deal creationists? Can any of you clear this up?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were just making things up as you go along.

I can't speak of what other creationist have said, because I don't really know what they said. But,

As I stated in another post. Evolution is hard to experience subjectively because of its nature. That being gradual changes to an organism over thousands of years. Which makes it a hard sell to the average lay person.

 

[Super Universe]

Just over the last few months, I've seen one creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic class is nothing more than "microevolution" and no big deal, another creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic family is just "adaptation" and no big deal, other creationists insist that no one has ever seen a new species evolve, and other creationists insist that no evolutionary change happens at all, ever.

So what's the deal creationists? Can any of you clear this up?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were just making things up as you go along.

I accept all of it except life never evolved from chemicals/minerals and species change is not caused by random mutations.

All species that existed and will exist are already programmed into DNA, some species stick for very long periods, some change again and again and again.

 

[David T]

Just over the last few months, I've seen one creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic class is nothing more than "microevolution" and no big deal, another creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic family is just "adaptation" and no big deal, other creationists insist that no one has ever seen a new species evolve, and other creationists insist that no evolutionary change happens at all, ever.

So what's the deal creationists? Can any of you clear this up?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were just making things up as you go along.

Sort of like asking perpetual motion theorists to prove their point I suppose. One of the main problems is they believe that there are laws dictating the actions around them. They believe that like laws of societies that everything around them is dictated by laws how stupid can anyone be to believe laws govern matter!!!! They also believe that written symbolism determines reality like some nut jobs living Ia la land. They believe what rattles around In their tiny brain and what they read and what they are taught is objective and nature is subject subjective to their thoughts!!,they read books written by others whom have written books etc. And that collective fantasy In books is reality!!!! Ha, how stupid it's a literary CULT_URE OF IDIOTS. good luck in deprogramming them with books. Oh wait a minute, that's an infinite recursion right there. Sorry but that I take it all back.

 

[Polymath257]

Just over the last few months, I've seen one creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic class is nothing more than "microevolution" and no big deal, another creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic family is just "adaptation" and no big deal, other creationists insist that no one has ever seen a new species evolve, and other creationists insist that no evolutionary change happens at all, ever.

So what's the deal creationists? Can any of you clear this up?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were just making things up as you go along.

Just try to get them to define a 'kind'. It's amazing how much variation is allowed in a 'kind' if the evidence is there for changes!

 

[sayak83]

Just try to get them to define a 'kind'. It's amazing how much variation is allowed in a 'kind' if the evidence is there for changes!

"Kind" is " kind of vague" if you get my drift.

 

[Polymath257]

The Fibonacci numbers do have a lot of very interesting properties.

Fibonacci sequence: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233,377,610,.....

Now, add them up to get a new sequence.

1, 1+1=2, 1+1+2=4, 1+1+2+3=7, 1+1+2+3+5=12, to give

1,2,4,7,12,20,33,54,88,143,232,376,609,...

each is one less than a Fibonacci number!

Or, take any Fibonacci number, square it (multiply by itself). Then subtract the product of the two one either side. You will always get a difference of +-1.

Ex: 34*34=1156. 21*55=1155. Difference is 1.

Another: 144*144=20736. 89*233=20737. Difference is -1.

Just for your edification.

 

[Sapiens]

I can't speak of what other creationist have said, because I don't really know what they said. But,

As I stated in another post. Evolution is hard to experience subjectively because of its nature. That being gradual changes to an organism over thousands of years. Which makes it a hard sell to the average lay person.

Evolution is rather easy to experience subjectively if you've taken two courses at a university level: comparative anatomy and embryology. The problem is that even most biology majors rarely take either course. Each course has numerous prerequisites and they are among the most difficult courses offered. These two lab courses are much more expensive to offer due to materials costs (you'd be amazed at the price of injected dead cats and stained and sectioned chicken eggs) so they are rarely offered every semester or even every year. Sure, gradual changes to an organism over thousands of years may be a hard sell to the average lay person ... so what? Lacking the basic prerequisites, the ignorant should willingly be, as the Victorians prefered their small children, better seen than heard.

 

[DavidFirth]

Just over the last few months, I've seen one creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic class is nothing more than "microevolution" and no big deal, another creationist say that evolutionary change within a taxonomic family is just "adaptation" and no big deal, other creationists insist that no one has ever seen a new species evolve, and other creationists insist that no evolutionary change happens at all, ever.

So what's the deal creationists? Can any of you clear this up?

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were just making things up as you go along.

Each person believes what they believe about it. Just like each person believes what they believe about any theory.

Christ taught us to teach all He said and did. What we think about evolution doesn't even compare to saving men from their sin.

 

[Enoch07]

Evolution is rather easy to experience subjectively if you've taken two courses at a university level: comparative anatomy and embryology. The problem is that even most biology majors rarely take either course. Each course has numerous prerequisites and they are among the most difficult courses offered. These two lab courses are much more expensive to offer due to materials costs (you'd be amazed at the price of injected dead cats and stained and sectioned chicken eggs) so they are rarely offered every semester or even every year. Sure, gradual changes to an organism over thousands of years may be a hard sell to the average lay person ... so what? Lacking the basic prerequisites, the ignorant should willingly be, as the Victorians prefered their small children, better seen than heard.

Yes but common folk can't afford to attend college just to experience it subjectively. And considering how the people that have gone to college treat common folk by calling them ignorant etc, for not being able to afford college. Why would they believe anything they say? Honey attracts more flies than vinegar.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes but common folk can't afford to attend college just to experience it subjectively.

Can't afford to attend college? Or can't qualify to attend college? Or are just congenitally stupid and/or unmotivated?

I attended what was arguably the top university in the world and what was definately the top zoology department in the world for the outrageous fee of $50.00 per quarter. I had a scholarship that covered that and all of my expenses. I have two children (one natural and one hānai) currently in college. They are both at a top institution (described by Newsweek as "the most difficult undergraduate program in North America) on a full ride, and being retired, I can not afford the $65,000 per year that would be the tuition and expenses for each one. They are getting the best of educations even though they have no money and they are not mortgaging thier lives with student loans, they will graduate debt free. So it is not a matter of can't afford to obtain a decent education, that's a red herring/straw man excuse, try to advance a hypothesis that not so easily falsifiable.

And considering how the people that have gone to college treat common folk by calling them ignorant etc, for not being able to afford college.

We are "common folk." We could not afford college. Yet we manage to get premier educations. Why was that? Your argument has been shown to be horse puckey, so get the horse out in front of the cart and put the "blame" (such as it is) where it belongs.

Why would they believe anything they say?

I don't think you need a university degree to understand that it just makes sense to listen to people who demonstrably know more than you do. Most of us turn to many, many, educated experts every day ... but the less educated have trouble doing so when the educated experts, almost universally, contradict the fables of their religion.

Honey attracts more flies than vinegar.

Volat non intrare clauso ore (Flies do not enter a closed mouth).

 

[Enoch07]

Can't afford to attend college? Or can't qualify to attend college? Or are just congenitally stupid and/or unmotivated?

Mostly can't afford. I know many of great minds that did not attend college. Solely because they were so entrenched in poverty it was not an option. Just because someone is able to afford college does not make them any more enlightened than the ones who have not. Trump being a prime example.

We are "common folk." We could not afford college. Yet we manage to get premier educations. Why was that? Your argument has been shown to be horse puckey, so get the horse out in front of the cart and put the "blame" (such as it is) where it belongs.

Bourgeoisie trust fund hipsters, who's parent could afford to send them to college are not common folk. They are people that despite having a college degree can't tell the difference between themselves and common folk.

Common folk are the proletariat, the manual laborer working class, who can barely afford to feed, cloth, and provide shelter for themselves.

I don't think you need a university degree to understand that it just makes sense to listen to people who demonstrably know more than you do. Most of us turn to many, many, educated experts every day ... but the less educated have trouble doing so when the educated experts, almost universally, contradict the fables of their religion.

Yes, you do this is the whole purpose of science. Otherwise you are just accepting what others say as truth, on the basis of goood faith. Why would commom folk have good faith in stuck up intellectuals that constantly insult them and looks down upon them as sub-human? It is nonsensical!

 

[Skwim]

From Answers in Genesis

What is a kind?

It's a . . . SPECIES.

"Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so."​

Note that "not necessarily so" implies that in some situations it is so. A kind can denote a species. This is confirmed by another statement:

It's a . . . GENUS

"On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels."​

So now we have kind being equivalent to both a species or a genus. But then we read.


It's a . . . FAMILY AND ORDER

"Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals"
source​

So we now have the possibility that a particular kind may be equivalent to plants and animals on the level of family and order. This gives us four taxonomic levels at which "kind" may be describing a life on earth.
The creationist "kind" could be the same as a

....Species
or Genus
or Family
or Order
​

depending on how ornery it is to fit it into the creationist model. And ain't this just super duper convenient!

.

.

 

[Sapiens]

Mostly can't afford. I know many of great minds that did not attend college. Solely because they were so entrenched in poverty it was not an option.

There are sufficient examples of people who did not have two pennies to rub together who obtained a university education, so I submit that there is something lacking other than cash.

Just because someone is able to afford college does not make them any more enlightened than the ones who have not. Trump being a prime example.

There are any number of people with college educations that never learned to think ... there are all sorts of issues with the American university system, be that as it may, the odds of being able to understand the changes a species go through during the evolutionary process requires a highly specialized and rarefied education or a willingness to listen to educated experts (who possess said education). Lack of money is not the impediment, faith in religious fable, however, is the impediment.

Bourgeoisie trust fund hipsters, who's parent could afford to send them to college are not common folk.

When did we change to conversation to bourgeoisie trust fund hipsters? Those adjectives do not apply to me or my children.

They are people that despite having a college degree can't tell the difference between themselves and common folk.

That is an oxymoron, bourgeoisie who can't tell the difference between themselves and common folk.

Common folk are the proletariat, the manual laborer working class, who can barely afford to feed, cloth, and provide shelter for themselves.

I hate to shatter your Marxist analysis but there are plenty of
proletariat who can afford fifty thousand dollar pickups, they eat fine (well, the eat crap, but plenty of it), they ape ruling class fashion, they have heavily mortgaged homes that don't have any books in them. But they lack what it takes to motivate their children to learn.

Yes, you do this is the whole purpose of science. Otherwise you are just accepting what others say as truth, on the basis of good faith. Why would common folk have good faith in stuck up intellectuals that constantly insult them and looks down upon them as sub-human? It is nonsensical!

The simple answer to your question is that having such faith is the rational and sensible thing to do. But you seem to be arguing that lumpenproletariat do not do so because those who actually have the facts at their disposal don't kiss their butts, sort of an intellectual form of cutting off your nose to spite your face on the part of the lumpenproletariat, no? Marx described the lumpenproles as those unlikely ever to achieve class consciousness and who are therefore lost to socially useful production, of no use to the revolutionary struggle, and perhaps even an impediment to the realization of a classless society. Or ... do you feel that "common folk" anti-intellectualism and know-nothingism is part and parcel of the entire proletariat? That would be a very revisionist view.

 

[Enoch07]

There are sufficient examples of people who did not have two pennies to rub together who obtained a university education, so I submit that there is something lacking other than cash.

Sure but for every one that a great many could not. Poverty and high school dropouts

In 2012 alone 1.1 million high school drop outs due to poverty. The ones that do make it to college, half of them drop out and never receive a degree due to poverty.

That is an oxymoron, bourgeoisie who can't tell the difference between themselves and common folk.

Oxymorons in the flesh at Berkeley in California. They were black mask and Marx visits them in their dreams and whispers about a workers paradise! Even though these kids have never experienced hard labor a day in their life.

I hate to shatter your Marxist analysis but there are plenty of
proletariat who can afford fifty thousand dollar pickups, they eat fine (well, the eat crap, but plenty of it), they ape ruling class fashion, they have heavily mortgaged homes that don't have any books in them. But they lack what it takes to motivate their children to learn.

Coming up for $2,000 down payment on a $50,000 truck is easy once per year (earned income credit).

Its a lot harder for poverty stricken teenagers with no credit history and barely enough money to feed themselves, let alome put themselves through college.

The simple answer to your question is that having such faith is the rational and sensible thing to do.

For religion, yes thats fine.

But faith does not hold water for the scientific community, so why should we be expected to have faith in them?

 

[Jose Fly]

I accept all of it except life never evolved from chemicals/minerals and species change is not caused by random mutations.

What is the cause?

All species that existed and will exist are already programmed into DNA, some species stick for very long periods, some change again and again and again.

And your evidence for this pre-programming is..............?

 

[Jose Fly]

Just try to get them to define a 'kind'. It's amazing how much variation is allowed in a 'kind' if the evidence is there for changes!

That is definitely related to the question in the OP. Usually creationists will say that evolution within a "kind" is acceptable, but then they're all over the map as to what a "kind" is.

 

[Jose Fly]

I can't speak of what other creationist have said, because I don't really know what they said. But,

As I stated in another post. Evolution is hard to experience subjectively because of its nature. That being gradual changes to an organism over thousands of years. Which makes it a hard sell to the average lay person.

Actually, seeing a population evolve is fairly simple. It's a pretty common lab experiment in undergraduate BIO 100 courses.

 

[Jose Fly]

Each person believes what they believe about it. Just like each person believes what they believe about any theory.[/quote
It's funny how even though Christian creationists adhere to the same basic religion and holy book, they vary wildly as to just how much evolution they'll accept.

 

[Jose Fly]

From Answers in Genesis

What is a kind?

It's a . . . SPECIES.

"Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so."​

Note that "not necessarily so" implies that in some situations it is so. A kind can denote a species. This is confirmed by another statement:

It's a . . . GENUS

"On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels."​

So now we have kind being equivalent to both a species or a genus. But then we read.


It's a . . . FAMILY AND ORDER

"Creation scientists use the word baramin to refer to created kinds. Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals"
source​

So we now have the possibility that a particular kind may be equivalent to plants and animals on the level of family and order. This gives us four taxonomic levels at which "kind" may be describing a life on earth.
The creationist "kind" could be the same as a

....Species
or Genus
or Family
or Order
​

depending on how ornery it is to fit it into the creationist model. And ain't this just super duper convenient!

.

.

BINGO!!! Even a single creationist organization varies enormously when it comes to how much evolution they'll accept.

It's almost like they're making it up as they go along..........