nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 245:
Line 245: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing (view source)
Revision as of 11:50, May 22, 2007
, 11:50, May 22, 2007→Noah's Ark: Fact or Fiction: The spread of animals
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:05, 22 May 2007
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:05, 22 May 2007
: "''How do you mean that the opposite has been observed?''". Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''generation'' of massive amounts of new genetic [[information]], whilst observations show that mutations not only do not result in increases in genetic information, but actually ''destroy'' genetic information. Destruction of genetic information is the opposite of the generation of new genetic information.
: "''From what I understand, bacteria have been observed to evolve and change quite significantly because of mutations and natural selection.''". That depends on what you mean by "evolve". Sure, they change, but they don't generate ''new genetic information''.
: "''Bacteria are one of the best organisms to observe as they reproduce very rapidly and the population can have progressed by tens of generations every day.''". Very true. And you know what? They are ''still'' bacteria! They have not generated new information to become anything else. If bacteria are still bacteria after, say, 100,000 generations (ten generations per day for less than 30 years), how did ape-like creatures change into men in, say, 33,000 generations (1 million years divided by 30 years per generation)?
: "''Regarding the 8000 species to fit on Noahs arc, how did so few species become so many after the flood? Natural selection does not result in the differentiation of species so quickly''". Yet just before that you commented about how fast creatures change and how we've seen new species appear fairly quickly!
: I attended a public meeting many years ago, put on by the Australian Skeptics, attempting to debunk creationism. They had four speakers, three scientists and a journalist. Two scientists and the journalist attacked creationists' motives and tried a guilt-by-association argument, and only one scientist actually discussed science! And his argument was that species form quite rapidly. I was puzzled (and I wasn't the only one) as to how this argument was supposed to refute creationism when it actually helped explain the very question you are asking.
: The point is that speciation ''can'' occur rapidly in the right conditions; it's been observed in our lifetime, so the 4,500 years since the flood is plenty of time. Your ideas of the pace of speciation are probably based on evolutionary ideas of how long evolutionists have think it has taken, rather than any actual observations.
: "''My understanding was that the last ice age that created a land bridge between Asia and Australia was over 6000 years ago''". That's according to the evolutionary timescale, which young-Earth creationists reject. My point about scientists not knowing everything was that I probably can't answer all your questions about how animals got to other parts of the world from Ararat.
: "''...how do you account for the predatorial megafauna that existed in Australia for a long time?''". First, was it really predatorial? Second, was it post-flood or pre-flood?
: "''..how did they spread so far?''". Slowly. They didn't need to travel all the way from Ararat to Australia in one trip, or one generation. Just as rabbits have spread across much of Australia in the say, 50 years after they were introduced, animals would have spread around the world over, say, 200 years (to pick a couple of figure out of the air).
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)