35
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + + +
Talk:Biology and creation (view source)
Revision as of 06:16, April 10, 2008
, 06:16, April 10, 2008no edit summary
:::: 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''.
:::: 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)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Come now, stop trying to make me out to be ignorant and merely land yourself there instead. We have seen bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, they don't need to become anything other than bacteria, and they have still evolved. Evolution doesn't have to lead to bacteria becoming anything else (or even multicelluar), you are using a misconceived definition of evolution I'm afraid.
:::::As Humbli stated, and as I would have thought to be obvious, the 4000 year figure comes from the flood. We have pairs of animals, now unless you claim noah manage to fit two (or seven or fourteen of some animals), of every species that exists today, then he must have taken two of every "kind" (at whatever point creationists decide to define as a kind at the time). Now if we only have two to start with, and a lot of species to get to, then we need a lot of mutation to achieve the species variety in such a short time, and even more so because we are dealing with tiny populations. So if you are willing to state creationist biologists believe in everything evolutionists believe in, except molecules to man, then they would also accept mutation rates, however they cannot agree with biologists on these things due to the reasons I've just stated. Mutation is an observable event. Mutation rates are observable. The mechanism of replication is observable. So unless the replication systems have changed a great deal in the past few thousands years (in order to slow down speciation (more comfortable a word for you as opposed to evolution?)), then YEC biologists must argue mutation rates.
:::::And to be honest, I'd like to go back to when mutation was extremely fast, and apparently almost never bad. Because that's another important thing you have to consider, with a large population and slow mutation you have a good buffer to survive negative mutations (doesn't matter if some animals just don't make it), when dealing with a very small population, in which almost every animal has some serious mutations, then you're facing big trouble.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 02:16, 10 April 2008 (EDT)