nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 17:
Line 17: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Biology and creation (view source)
Revision as of 10:42, April 10, 2008
, 10:42, April 10, 2008A lesson in basic creationism
:::::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.
:::::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)
:::::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)
:::::: Your comments show that you don't know the basics of creationist arguments, so "ignorant" is quite appropriate. The whole point of evolution is that all living things evolved from the first living thing, the evolutionary "family tree". If that were true, then given the generation rates of bacteria, you should, as I said, expect to see bacteria evolved ''into something else''. Yet you don't, as you now admit.
:::::: To put that in more precise terms, the first living cells would not have had the genetic information for hair, blood, and lungs, to pick just three examples. So between bacteria and humans (etc.) evolution has to add enormous amounts of new genetic information. The question is, can we identify mechanisms that can produce this information?
:::::: First, the simply answer is "no". Mutations either have no informational effect, or they ''destroy'' information. This has been observed over and over. In other words, a key prediction of evolution is falsified.
:::::: Second, bacteria having resistance to antibiotics does ''not'' involve the generation of new genetic information. In many cases, a few members of the population ''already had'' the resistance. The antibiotic wiped out the ones without the resistance, and only the ones with the resistance were able to reproduce, so now a large part of the population are resistant to the antibiotic. But ''there was no new information generated''. So it is ''not'' "molecules to man" evolution.
:::::: Third, when two creatures mate and produce offspring, each of the offspring inherit ''half'' the genetic information from each parent. None of the offspring have a full complement of the genetic information of their parents. If environmental pressures wipe out individuals with certain characteristics (such as short fur in a cold environment), the genetic information that is not in the ones that survive is ''lost''. So if two populations of creatures that started out together end up in different environments with different selection pressures, each population ends up being a little (or not so little) different to the other. Depending on how different, we might classify them as different species. But in all this process of speciation, no new genetic information has been generated, and no mutations were involved.
:::::: Mutations do occur, however, and could also affect the above process, causing even further genetic information to be lost than just that lost from selection pressure on inherited subsets of the information. But again, this is a ''loss'' of information, not a gain, and ''cannot'' explain the evolutionary family tree from the first living thing to humans, birds, and pomegranates.
:::::: So the various species that exist today are indeed descended from the fewer kinds that were on the ark, but not from a process that can explain the evolutionary family tree, and much of it not from mutations. Mutations, and mutations rates, both of which have been observed, are not the issue. The issue is whether or not mutations can produce the evolutionary family tree. That is the (claimed) ''history'', and has ''not'' been observed.
:::::: Again, this is pretty basic YEC creationism, and if you're not aware of that, you really don't have a clue about the idea that you are attempting to refute.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 10 April 2008 (EDT)