Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2013, 07:44 PM
Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
I am currently taking a biological anthropology class. A lesson we went over a few weeks ago allowed me to understand why creationists have such a hard time with accepting macroevolution. Here is the current scientific view of speciation (taken from a class slide):

[Image: trueevolution.png]

As can be seen from the diagram, species branch off, and these species can live at the same time with each other. The most important thing is that the species number increases. Now here is the creationist view:

[Image: creationistevolution.png]

They think one species turns into another species with no increase in number. This is why they are always rattling on about "missing links." They think evolution is Ape --> Missing Link --> Human. I had a general understanding of their thought process, but these diagrams really help explain their flawed view of evolution.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like ghostexorcist's post
28-03-2013, 08:30 PM
RE: Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
(28-03-2013 07:44 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  I am currently taking a biological anthropology class. A lesson we went over a few weeks ago allowed me to understand why creationists have such a hard time with accepting macroevolution. Here is the current scientific view of speciation (taken from a class slide):

[Image: trueevolution.png]

As can be seen from the diagram, species branch off, and these species can live at the same time with each other. The most important thing is that the species number increases. Now here is the creationist view:

[Image: creationistevolution.png]

They think one species turns into another species with no increase in number. This is why they are always rattling on about "missing links." They think evolution is Ape --> Missing Link --> Human. I had a general understanding of their thought process, but these diagrams really help explain their flawed view of evolution.


Both of those things occur.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 08:46 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 12:24 AM by Doctor X.)
RE: Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
******

Those who administer and moderate in order to exercise personal agenda merely feed into the negative stereotype of Atheism
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 09:21 PM
RE: Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
(28-03-2013 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Both of those things occur.

Yes, one is obviously a subset of the other. However, creationist believe that once the one species evolves into another, the previous species no longer exists. That's why they ask us why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 10:25 PM
RE: Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
(28-03-2013 09:21 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Both of those things occur.

Yes, one is obviously a subset of the other. However, creationist believe that once the one species evolves into another, the previous species no longer exists. That's why they ask us why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them.

Theist-Logic. Brilliant. Shocking

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 10:27 PM
RE: Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
(28-03-2013 10:25 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 09:21 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  Yes, one is obviously a subset of the other. However, creationist believe that once the one species evolves into another, the previous species no longer exists. That's why they ask us why monkeys still exist if we evolved from them.

Theist-Logic. Brilliant. Shocking


And where the hell are the crocoducks?
[Image: Crocoduck.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-03-2013, 10:45 PM
RE: Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
(28-03-2013 10:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  And where the hell are the crocoducks?
[Image: Crocoduck.jpg]

In my pond.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2013, 11:19 PM
RE: Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
(28-03-2013 10:45 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  In my pond.

I've heard they are vicious little bastards.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 02:21 AM
RE: Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
(28-03-2013 10:27 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-03-2013 10:25 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  Theist-Logic. Brilliant. Shocking


And where the hell are the crocoducks?
[Image: Crocoduck.jpg]

Those things taste like chicken.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Heywood Jahblome's post
29-03-2013, 04:59 AM
RE: Creationist evolution vs actual evolution
If you want to know what creationists think I believe it is good to go to the source. I actually think some material from Answers in Genesis makes interesting reading, for example. They really have given up all the ground of evolution - They accept natural selection is real. They accept speciation is real[1]. The two places they differ from conventional evolutionary theory are:
a. They believe that a set of "kinds" were created and that any evolution started from those initial forms rather than from one single form
b. They believe that sufficient genetic material existed in the original created species to account for the diversity of life today - similar to the wolf genome splitting into all our current dog morphologies they believe that "kinds" are able to branch into "species".
(a) is easily dealt with by asking: Which kinds? They cannot answer and have no reasonable way of answering. They would need to identify a set of buckets into which all life on earth fit distinctly without crossing into the other buckets. Science failed to find those buckets, which is why we accept a single origin of life today. Moreover, the only kind they really are sure exists is humanity - which is so contrary to the genetic evidence alone that it cannot be accepted on any other basis than faith alone.
(b) can be dealt with by identifying mutations that have clearly introduced new information to the genome, such as the sequence responsible for generating nylonase.

So when talking to a creationist I like to dig into their actual position. If they are creationist out of ignorance, do they accept a model like AiG's model? If so, how do they account for its specific weaknesses? Do they have their own specific model? What have they done to determine whether or not it is true? Creationism at least in principle deals with a pursuit of truth in a scientific arena. By framing the question in verifiable terms I think some ground can be made in the discussion.

Benjamin
[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ecies-kind

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: