Questions for creationists who ‘understand evolution’?

[FDRC2014]

I can’t see how anyone who properly understands evolution by means of natural selection, can have need for a creationist view. Many creationists say that they understand evolution, but I am not sure to what degree. Here are some questions that if you have a basic knowledge of evolution, you should be able to answer.
Only answer if you are a creationist, and don't just research the answer and paste something you don't understand – just say you don’t know.
Also don't cheat and look at others answers.
I know the answers (or scientific answers), but am interested in what other people know/think.


Explain the basic idea of evolution by natural selection.

Explain where the advantageous trait came from.

Using the above explain the evolution of the giraffe neck.

Explain how speciation occurs, by natural selection in a disruptive environment.

What does the word 'Theory' mean, in a scientific context

Explain how evolution can give rise to infertile worker bees.

Explain why evolution by natural selection is NOT survival of the fittest.

Explain what biological fitness is.

Give an example of evolution that happens on a short time scale (i.e. that can be observed).

 

[Pegg]

the creationist view is important because its just as important, if not more, to know 'where' life came from

how life develops is one area of interest, but why it should develop at all is another that evolutionists are unable to answer.

 

[FDRC2014]

the creationist view is important because its just as important, if not more, to know 'where' life came from

how life develops is one area of interest, but why it should develop at all is another that evolutionists are unable to answer.

Creationism is saying that God made each individual species, one on their own.
Evolution says that they originate from one simple common ancestor.

The original origin of life (what everything evolved from) is still being investigated. Just because we don't know now exactly how it happened doesn't mean to say it is god. There are a few hypothesise around, and new evidence is being looked at.

Regarding why, there doesn't have to be a why.
We are just a complex configuration of matter, that momentarily exists.
It's like dropping a box of marbles on the floor and looking what shape they make. If you do it one-million times, one of them might make a certain shape you are looking for (say a square). There is no reason for this, just chaos. Just like there is no reason for like, we just occur. I would hate to think that we had reason (as in someone put us here), just like i would hate to think that someone was controlling where some dropped marbles went.

I think our tolerance to believe in supernatural is linked to our ability to conceive probability.
For example if someone toasts some bread with the face go Jesus on, I just think, well, millions of pieces of toast are toasted every week, it would be stupid to think that Jesus' face didn't come up once in a while. But I am sure if you look hard enough, so did the face of darwin. Or is this just a generic man with a beard.

 

[Pegg]

Creationism is saying that God made each individual species, one on their own.
Evolution says that they originate from one simple common ancestor.

genesis doesnt actually say that God created each individual 'species'

It says he created each individual 'kind'... a kind can contain several species. the example i often use is the lion and tiger - 2 different species who can interbreed, but of the same kind.

if the original 'kind' is the common ancestor, then there can be a variety to have developed from it as evolution states.

The original origin of life (what everything evolved from) is still being investigated. Just because we don't know now exactly how it happened doesn't mean to say it is god. There are a few hypothesise around, and new evidence is being looked at.

yep, and its for that reason that evolutionists cannot confidently infer that life arose naturally without intervention.

 

[FDRC2014]

genesis doesnt actually say that God created each individual 'species'

It says he created each individual 'kind'... a kind can contain several species. the example i often use is the lion and tiger - 2 different species who can interbreed, but of the same kind.

if the original 'kind' is the common ancestor, then there can be a variety to have developed from it as evolution states.

Kind is not a scientific meaning.
Your definition of kind is not standing. A lion and tiger are separate species, they cannot bread to produce viable (fertile) offspring - if they could they would be essentially variations of the same species. This is why evolution works.
So if a lion and tiger are both the same kind, is a common domestic cat also the same kind? If so then the scientific name for your kind is family (Felidae).
So then how can you say, that we are not evolved from apes. Our family is Hominidae, which include gorillas and chimpanzees (i.e. we are as related to them as a cat to a lion).

And why do you stop at family, how can the families in the order not be related. For example under the Carnivora order, the bear (Ursidae) and cat (Felidae) families are related.
The morphological resemblance between a brown bear and lion is hardly significant. They both have four limbs, big teeth, fur etc.
You can just continue up the scale until you can link everything from one common ancestor (a single prokaryote).

The above relies much on morphology, which as you may have thought is quite subjective (me saying a bear looks like a lion). But when you introduce genetics, you will see the undoubtable evidence that they are related, and derived from he same origin. We have many 'silenced' genes, that are from our ancestors, that other species also have (even bananas and elephants).

yep, and its for that reason that evolutionists cannot confidently infer that life arose naturally without intervention.

Evolution accounts for all species from an original ancestral prokaryote cell.
How the original ancestral prokaryote cell came about is still being hypothesised about, but this is NOT evolution.
Evolutionists CAN confidently infer that species arose naturally without intervention. How life originally began is still under investigation, but just becuause the romans didnt know what caused lightining didnt mean that god did actually cause lightinng, i.e. just because we don't know something right now doesn't mean to say it was/is god.

 

[Pegg]

Kind is not a scientific meaning.
Your definition of kind is not standing. A lion and tiger are separate species, they cannot bread to produce viable (fertile) offspring - if they could they would be essentially variations of the same species. This is why evolution works.

Its called a Liger. This is evolution.

So if a lion and tiger are both the same kind, is a common domestic cat also the same kind? If so then the scientific name for your kind is family (Felidae).
So then how can you say, that we are not evolved from apes. Our family is Hominidae, which include gorillas and chimpanzees (i.e. we are as related to them as a cat to a lion).

scientists have tried to crossbreed chimps and humans and it doesnt work...this is the evidence that the apes and humans are not the same 'kind' (or family if you'd rather call it that)

And why do you stop at family, how can the families in the order not be related. For example under the Carnivora order, the bear (Ursidae) and cat (Felidae) families are related.

reproduction is the factor which links one animal to another. If successful reproduction is possible, then they are of the same genesis kind. Can a bear and a big cat be crossbred? I dont think its ever been done. But grizzly and polar bears can be successfully crossbred which shows they are of the same family.

 

[McBell]

genesis doesnt actually say that God created each individual 'species'

It says he created each individual 'kind'... a kind can contain several species. the example i often use is the lion and tiger - 2 different species who can interbreed, but of the same kind.

if the original 'kind' is the common ancestor, then there can be a variety to have developed from it as evolution states.


yep, and its for that reason that evolutionists cannot confidently infer that life arose naturally without intervention.

Where does the fit in to the "Kinds" hierarchy?
I mean, with your definition of kind requiring them to be able to reproduce....

 

[FDRC2014]

Its called a Liger

scientists have tried to crossbreed chimps and humans and it doesnt work...this is the evidence that the apes and humans are not the same 'kind' (or family if you'd rather call it that)

Hmm,
The ligers sterility is not stable, hence it is not an official species.
Just like a horse and donkey produces a mule. A mule is not a species but a hybrid, it cannot reproduce stably.
No scientific experiment has ever been published on the infusibility of a human and chimpanzee breading, as it would be unethical.
There is a good chance though, looking at the fact that 99% of our coding DNA is the same there is a good chance that you could produce an offspring, but as with hybrids, the viability (fertility) will be low (next to none).
The ability of two species to hybridise is just based upon their genetic similarity, not showing that two that cant were never related (they are just more distantly related).

reproduction is the factor which links one animal to another. If successful reproduction is possible, then they are of the same genesis kind.

The ability for for something to hybridise depends. Some can't naturally but with scientific intervention can, would these be the same kind? what about some of the 99% of species that are extinct, how do they related to the current species?
What about bacterial kinds?

Well at least we have established god din't create zebras, they evolved from an original kind.

Can a bear and a big cat be crossbred? I dont think its ever been done. But grizzly and polar bears can be successfully crossbred which shows they are of the same family.

No, not with current science. But this is because they are more distantly related and the genetics do not match up enough (but a hybrids genetics only just match up enough).
They could well produce a foetus, but it would most likely not be feasible for life. Again, it's just based upon how much their genetics match up, and how closely related they are.

Grizzly bears and polar bears are in the same genus, they are quite similar genetically to each other and therefore can produce hybrids.

Well at least i now understand what a 'kind' is (its not family, as it is not defined in the same way).
But i still cant understand how this defies in any way evolution of each kind from a common ancestor. Why couldn't the original kinds have evolved (since they themselves evolve, as we discuss above) from a common ancestor?

 

[Pegg]

Where does the fit in to the "Kinds" hierarchy?
I mean, with your definition of kind requiring them to be able to reproduce....

in the scientific term it could be as matthew stated, family. So in terms of the big cats, God created the first group of ancestors and from there they spread out and slowly developed into the many varieties of cat we see.

Biblical kinds constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits

 

[McBell]

in the scientific term it could be as matthew stated, family. So in terms of the big cats, God created the first group of ancestors and from there they spread out and slowly developed into the many varieties of cat we see.

Biblical kinds constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits

Again, what kind is a mule?
Your definition of kind requires it to be able to reproduce with something to be in the same kind as that something.
Since mules cannot reproduce, what kind is it?

 

[FDRC2014]

in the scientific term it could be as matthew stated, family. So in terms of the big cats, God created the first group of ancestors and from there they spread out and slowly developed into the many varieties of cat we see.

Biblical kinds constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits

As I stated above, your kind is just a discrete level of genetic similarity.
There is no reason this level should be considered a stop in evolution.
I also would not strictly call it a family, not i understand more what it is defined as.

 

[Thief]

I can’t see how anyone who properly understands evolution by means of natural selection, can have need for a creationist view. Many creationists say that they understand evolution, but I am not sure to what degree. Here are some questions that if you have a basic knowledge of evolution, you should be able to answer.
Only answer if you are a creationist, and don't just research the answer and paste something you don't understand – just say you don’t know.
Also don't cheat and look at others answers.
I know the answers (or scientific answers), but am interested in what other people know/think.


Explain the basic idea of evolution by natural selection.

Explain where the advantageous trait came from.

Using the above explain the evolution of the giraffe neck.

Explain how speciation occurs, by natural selection in a disruptive environment.

What does the word 'Theory' mean, in a scientific context

Explain how evolution can give rise to infertile worker bees.

Explain why evolution by natural selection is NOT survival of the fittest.

Explain what biological fitness is.

Give an example of evolution that happens on a short time scale (i.e. that can be observed).

I see a bias in the asking.....you have a judgment before the asking....

And in asking you make a list of demands that only volumes of typing can answer.

Obviously you have made an attempt to your favor.

Perhaps you might rephrase the op to a more theological asking.

It is theology that you are asking about.

 

[FDRC2014]

I see a bias in the asking.....you have a judgment before the asking....

And in asking you make a list of demands that only volumes of typing can answer.

Obviously you have made an attempt to your favor.

Perhaps you might rephrase the op to a more theological asking.

It is theology that you are asking about.

The main issue is that i don't think that people who 'say' they understand evolution do.
These are just some questions that i would wonder if a creationist logically come to the answer.

 

[Thief]

The main issue is that i don't think that people who 'say' they understand evolution do.
These are just some questions that i would wonder if a creationist logically come to the answer.

A creationist will deal of the issue as taught by fellow believers.
If there is any 'scientists' in their crowd, that discussion will take a back seat.

Now if you're really interested.....
We could proceed...with God....in place...as Creator.

 

[Pegg]

As I stated above, your kind is just a discrete level of genetic similarity.
There is no reason this level should be considered a stop in evolution.
I also would not strictly call it a family, not i understand more what it is defined as.

i've had this same discussion over and over and it seems 'kind' does not fit anywhere into the biological definition

To be straight, the genesis kind can reproduce. That means if creature A, B and C can all reproduce, they are of the same kind.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Its called a Liger. This is evolution.

These seven words show a complete lack of knowledge of biological evolution.
The mule is evolution?
Sterile offspring is evolution?

 

[Pegg]

These seven words show a complete lack of knowledge of biological evolution.
The mule is evolution?
Sterile offspring is evolution?

the mule is the limits of evolution

the many varieties of horses show how evolution develops

 

[FDRC2014]

i've had this same discussion over and over and it seems 'kind' does not fit anywhere into the biological definition

To be straight, the genesis kind can reproduce. That means if creature A, B and C can all reproduce, they are of the same kind.

If they can reproduce to give fertile offspring then they are the same species.
This just makes it plane creationism, no evolution whatsoever.
A domestic cat and lion cant bread to produce fertile offspring therefore aren't the same kind, or species. It seems whomever wrote this has no idea about biology, and therefore i can't see how you can believe them.

 

[FDRC2014]

These seven words show a complete lack of knowledge of biological evolution.
The mule is evolution?
Sterile offspring is evolution?

Exactly, this is why a species is a species, they can't interbreed and exchange genetic information. Speciation!

 

[FDRC2014]

the mule is the limits of evolution

What?

the many varieties of horses show how evolution develops

Yes, as with the many different species, genus, orders, class' etc.