|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists as Hyperevolutionists? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonic Inactive Member |
Would this be considerd a small genetic change?
Thank youSonic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonic Inactive Member |
That would include genetic drift and mutation, so are you saying those dont occur?
Thank YouSonic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
I've said before, and so have others, genetic drift and mutation are part of what you would call micro-e also.
------------------Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonic Inactive Member |
Have you read the other thread yet? I have not listed it this way but if you accumelate the information it would look something like this.
steps of TOE:1. micro-e 2. (medium-e)genetic drift and hidden mutation 3. macro-e Thank YouSonic P.S. I understand that you are trying to get me to follow a less specific guidline, that is, micro occures and leads to large changes but for me to be able to say I agree with the toe in any sort of way I have to be able to connect micro to macro with the guidlines I have presented. So do you think I am right or wrong? - and ok to continuing on the other thread. http://EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution -->EvC Forum: Macro and Micro Evolution [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2330 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
We can continue this on the other thread if you don't mind. The topic is more appropriate.
------------------Asgara "An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
In Box C of Ligers and wholphins? What next?, we see AiG's idea of the history of the "cat kind". That diagram is the sort of diagram very familiar to students of evolution; it portrays all existing felines, like Felis, Panthera, and Acionyx as descendants of one set of felines taken aboard the Ark, and sabertoothed felines like Smilodon as descendants of another.
I marvel that they can print such a diagram with a straight face, because of all the evolution that it implies. Hugh Ross is certainly right about many YEC's proposing a sort of hyperevolution. [This message has been edited by lpetrich, 11-29-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5222 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonic,
Would this be considerd a small genetic change? Small accumulated genetic changes. Just like macroevolution. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2561 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:I find this list baffling in that thread and baffling here. It's like seeing the steps of speech listed as: 1. micro-s: words 2. medium-s: sounds and lips 3. macro-s: sentences In the physics phrase... "That isn't right. That isn't even wrong." I have no idea what it's supposed to explain or describe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Alternatively one can JUST as legit MATELY ask, if the newer macroevolution is not BOTH a reaction FROM creationism as it is AGANIST it!!! Please, lets not leave every cow out. The answer however needs hold for both sides as well as both angles if the law is not to step in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
But 1-3 are the definitions that relate to scientific and
mathematical usage. You do understand that words can have subtly differentmeanings in different contexts ... don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Excuse me but Creationists have known that the Created Kind was above the current species level for over 200 years- Karl von Linne is credited for that.
What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that. If we knew the answers we wouldn't need science. What is certain is at the time of the original creation the created kinds would have been the same as species. However once new niches were found variants of the original would form. This would be due to the adaptive ability designed in to the organisms. However just because variations can form doesn't mean new body plans can come about. As for "all the evolution" involved in the Creation model of biological evolution- ya see when a population already has the necessary genetic information all it takes is a little reshuffling. I know this is confusing to most evolutionists, just like their "explanation" of where the genetic information came from in the first place is confusing (or rather non-existant) to us. [This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-15-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Excuse me but Creationists have known that the Created Kind was above the current species level for over 200 years- Karl von Linne is credited for that. Oh, this is news to me. I didn't know the issue had come up that far back. Could you offer some references and more details on this?
What is certain is at the time of the original creation the created kinds would have been the same as species. LOL, of course they would be the same as species. There isn't anything BUT species (although there is fuzz in when something is a new species and when it isn't). All higher taxa are just groupings of species for convenience.
What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that. So we have this big argument about variation "within kinds" but creationists don't know what they are? When you have a bit more detail sorted out then you can make statments about what has and has not happened.
As for "all the evolution" involved in the Creation model of biological evolution- ya see when a population already has the necessary genetic information all it takes is a little reshuffling.I know this is confusing to most evolutionists,... So if there is only a "little reshuffling" between existing species then they have come from one created kind? Is that what this means? Can you put some quantitative values on "little reshuffling"? How much reshuffling is needed before it is not "little" anymore? What causes the reshuffling? What evidence for it is there? What consitutes "reshuffling"? Is it just the recombination of genomes? What part do new mutations play in this "reshuffling"? Gee, sorry about all the questions but since it turns out creationists don't know what "kinds" are I thought I would see if they have a clue about what "reshuffling" is. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-15-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7040 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
So, horses and donkeys diverged in about 1,000 years (both exist shortly after the flood as distinct "kinds")? That's only 200 generations of horse-kinds, and they reach reproductive isolation! Even if we give elephants 4,000 years, that's, again, only 200 generations. African, Indian, and the various pygmy elephants - all in 200 generations? Are mammoths and mastadons in that same hyperevolved category?
Do you realize how fast you're proposing evolution occur? Nothing could stop it if it could happen *that* fast! ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 12-15-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
Excuse me but Creationists have known that the Created Kind was above the current species level for over 200 years- Karl von Linne is credited for that.
NosyNed:Oh, this is news to me. I didn't know the issue had come up that far back. Could you offer some references and more details on this? John Paul:I am sure it is news to you. Most evolutionists don't even know what is being debated. That's not meant to be a slam, it is just an observation. References? Well Linne, a Creationist, was looking to define the created kind when he originally came up with binomial nomenclature. It was after research that he concluded that the Created Kind was more at the level of Genus. What is certain is at the time of the original creation the created kinds would have been the same as species. NosyNed:LOL, of course they would be the same as species. There isn't anything BUT species (although there is fuzz in when something is a new species and when it isn't). All higher taxa are just groupings of species for convenience. John Paul:The definition of species is still pretty fuzzy. What were the Created Kinds? Science should be able to help us ascertain that. NosyNed:So we have this big argument about variation "within kinds" but creationists don't know what they are? When you have a bit more detail sorted out then you can make statments about what has and has not happened. John Paul:There is a basic idea. What I meant (and I know I should be more specific) is that we don't know exactly what they were. Do you know exactly what the alleged first population was in the evolutionary scenario? Or was it populations? I mean by your logic we can't know if we evolved from a common ancester if we don't know what it was. As for "all the evolution" involved in the Creation model of biological evolution- ya see when a population already has the necessary genetic information all it takes is a little reshuffling.I know this is confusing to most evolutionists,... NosyNed:So if there is only a "little reshuffling" between existing species then they have come from one created kind? Is that what this means? Can you put some quantitative values on "little reshuffling"? How much reshuffling is needed before it is not "little" anymore? What causes the reshuffling? What evidence for it is there? What consitutes "reshuffling"? Is it just the recombination of genomes? What part do new mutations play in this "reshuffling"? John Paul:What we do know is that reshuffling does not bring about any novelty. That is why "random mutations" had to be added. This is basic genetics NosyNed. NosyNed:Gee, sorry about all the questions but since it turns out creationists don't know what "kinds" are I thought I would see if they have a clue about what "reshuffling" is. John Paul:As I have said, we don't know exactly what they were. If we did we wouldn't need science. However if you would like you should read some of the articles at AiG.
Natural Selection vs. Evolution
| Answers in Genesis
Also there is a book available: Forbidden Ya see NosyNed for all of your questions evolutionists still can't answer this one:What is the biological or genetic evidence that shows random mutations culled by natural selection can lead to the range of changes they insist have occured?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Paul Inactive Member |
I don't know the timeline of the flood. I don't believe the timeline some creationists do.
However if the horse representatives were as genetically diverse as possible than yes it would be entirely possible to get the variations we see today. As I have said, the creation model does not require new genetic information to arise. All that is required is the existing information to get reshuffled and then become fixed. Also we have a different view on what evolution is. That is why the theory is ambiguous.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024