nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + + +
Talk:Biology and creation (view source)
Revision as of 02:51, April 10, 2008
, 02:51, April 10, 2008Creationists don't believe in evolution, and biology does not require evolution.
:::To answer your question on my usertalk (may as well state it here), I've got a zoology degree, have worked in the field of prosimians and am planning on starting a phd soon (hell I hope to become a professor one day, so perhaps I'm not worth listening to ;)). Also I've discussed this and these topics a fair old bit. Humblpi has basically got it. Mutation rates are pretty damn constant, not just in mammals but bacteria as well, the reason they evolve so much faster is their amazingly rapid generation time compared to ours. In short, if you're dealing with a 4000 year time period, mutation rates must have been through the roof (not only a very tiny population to work with, but also a hell of a lot to diversify to), and somehow avoid negative mutations (which are far more dangerous in small populations than large ones). YEC would have a lot of problems with biology (all related to evolutionary concepts, but there are a few). OEC can indeed accept every part of biology unscathed (depending of course on their beliefs). It just seems like a very short article, containing barely any information, and that which is contained needs to be qualified in many places.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::To answer your question on my usertalk (may as well state it here), I've got a zoology degree, have worked in the field of prosimians and am planning on starting a phd soon (hell I hope to become a professor one day, so perhaps I'm not worth listening to ;)). Also I've discussed this and these topics a fair old bit. Humblpi has basically got it. Mutation rates are pretty damn constant, not just in mammals but bacteria as well, the reason they evolve so much faster is their amazingly rapid generation time compared to ours. In short, if you're dealing with a 4000 year time period, mutation rates must have been through the roof (not only a very tiny population to work with, but also a hell of a lot to diversify to), and somehow avoid negative mutations (which are far more dangerous in small populations than large ones). YEC would have a lot of problems with biology (all related to evolutionary concepts, but there are a few). OEC can indeed accept every part of biology unscathed (depending of course on their beliefs). It just seems like a very short article, containing barely any information, and that which is contained needs to be qualified in many places.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: The article appears to be based on a comment I made [[Talk:Intelligent design controversy|here]], in which I said:
{{QuoteBox|Creationist biologists accept all the biology that an evolutionist accepts, but disagrees on how living things came about. That is, they agree on the observable ''facts'', not on the unobserved ''history''.}}
:::: But the claim that "evolution plays such a central part in modern biology, as an underpinning theory" is simply rhetoric, with little basis in fact. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4755/ here] for more. And (molecules to man) evolution is ''not'' an "observed fact". Nobody has ever seen a creature evolved into a different kind of creature.
:::: I'm curious about Raggs' claim of bacteria evolving fast: What have we ''seen'' bacteria evolving into (i.e. becoming something other than bacteria)? The point is, despite the rapid generation time, we have ''not'' seen them evolve (i.e. change into something else), yet if evolution were true, surely that's exactly what we would expect. In effect, it's a prediction of evolution that has been falsified.
:::: I don't understand the comment about mutation rates being through the roof if you're dealing with a 4,000-year time period. It ''seems'' to be suggesting that creationists believe that everything ''evolved'' from the first living thing, just as evolutionists claim, but over a period of 4,000 years. If this is what Raggs is saying, he is just showing his gross ignorance of the idea that he so readily tries to point out problems with. YECs don't believe in (molecules to man) evolution ''at all''.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)