Questions for creationists who ‘understand evolution’?

[FDRC2014]

A creationist will deal of the issue as taught by fellow believers.
If there is any 'scientists' in their crowd, that discussion will take a back seat.

Now if you're really interested.....
We could proceed...with God....in place...as Creator.

I don't understand.

If you are taught by fellow believes you will just perpetuate am incorrect belief.
Just because someone tells you something, it doesn't mean to say it is correct.

My world does not not need a creator - logic and science explains everything.

 

[tumbleweed41]

the mule is the limits of evolution

the many varieties of horses show how evolution develops

'Varieties' such as Hyracotherium, Orohippus, Epihippus, Duchesnehippus, Mesohippus, Kalobatippus, Parahippus, Hipparion, Pliohippus, Plesippus, etc...

Representing only the last 60 million years of evolution to get to modern horses.

 

[Thief]

I don't understand.

If you are taught by fellow believes you will just perpetuate am incorrect belief.
Just because someone tells you something, it doesn't mean to say it is correct.

My world does not not need a creator - logic and science explains everything.

You actually believe you can explain?...everything.

 

[FDRC2014]

You actually believe you can explain?...everything.

:yes:
Science and logic can hypothesise.
There is no need to invent god to explain everything.

 

[Thief]

:yes:
Science and logic can hypothesise.
There is no need to invent god to explain everything.

Cause and effect are not in your science?

 

[FDRC2014]

Cause and effect are not in your science?

Explain...
Science tries to answer everything, things it cannot answer there are hypothesis about, these are logical hypothesis.

 

[McBell]

the mule is the limits of evolution

the many varieties of horses show how evolution develops

What kind is a mule?

Why do you keep ignoring this question?

 

[McBell]

Cause and effect are not in your science?

here we go again....

 

[FDRC2014]

Cause and effect are not in your science?

Oh, perhaps i might understand now.
The answer is no.
You don't have to have a cause to have an effect.

An atom decays with no cause, it is just chaos (according to current knowledge).
Thermodynamically everything becomes more chaotic without the input of energy.

PS:
What/who says you have to have a cause to have an effect anyway.
What causes the causes, it's a paradox and therefore doesn't work

 

[Thief]

Oh, perhaps i might understand now.
The answer is no.
You don't have to have a cause to have an effect.

An atom decays with no cause, it is just chaos (according to current knowledge).
Thermodynamically everything becomes more chaotic without the input of energy.

PS:
What/who says you have to have a cause to have an effect anyway.
What causes the causes, it's a paradox and therefore doesn't work

Not true.
First explained to me early in life...in grade school.
That the cause is not identifiable...doesn't matter...it's there.
For every cause there is an effect....for every effect there is a cause.

 

[Pegg]

What kind is a mule?

Why do you keep ignoring this question?

its a horse kind

 

[McBell]

its a horse kind

How can it be a horse kind if it cannot reproduce with a horse?

Have you already forgotten your definition of "kind"?

 

[Pegg]

How can it be a horse kind if it cannot reproduce with a horse?

Have you already forgotten your definition of "kind"?

and as i've kept saying...its reached the limits that evolution will take it.

Its a hybrid and hybrids are the limits of evolution... .but its still from that same 'kind' group.

 

[shinydarkrai94]

I can’t see how anyone who properly understands evolution by means of natural selection, can have need for a creationist view. Many creationists say that they understand evolution, but I am not sure to what degree. Here are some questions that if you have a basic knowledge of evolution, you should be able to answer.
Only answer if you are a creationist, and don't just research the answer and paste something you don't understand – just say you don’t know.
Also don't cheat and look at others answers.
I know the answers (or scientific answers), but am interested in what other people know/think.


Explain the basic idea of evolution by natural selection.

Change in an organism over time.

Explain where the advantageous trait came from.

Random mutations

Using the above explain the evolution of the giraffe neck.

Giraffes that grew a long neck got more leaves than others? I would assume? Of course, it's not as simple as simply growing a neck .

Explain how speciation occurs, by natural selection in a disruptive environment.

Two groups of organisms are separated and the genetic variety changed so much that they could not reproduce

What does the word 'Theory' mean, in a scientific context

Essentially a hypothesis that's been tested for a while.

Explain how evolution can give rise to infertile worker bees.

Random mutation

Explain why evolution by natural selection is NOT survival of the fittest.

Natural selection is change, where as SOF implies that anything that is not physically fit will not survive.

Explain what biological fitness is.

Being able to reproduce I think.

Give an example of evolution that happens on a short time scale (i.e. that can be observed).

Mating two species and creating a new one? Random mutations?

Well, I'm homeschooled and I've never really taken an evolution class before, so I'm not sure if I got all those right .

I don't think the issue so much is whether creationists understand natural selection. I think most do, and simply don't think that it's probable that natural selection can account for what we observe today in only 1ba. It's hard to even find an observable change in which new information is added (not duplicated, added). For example, downsyndrome and bacteria digesting nylon, etc, only duplicate existing information.

 

[*Anne*]

Welcome to RF, Shinydarkrai94!

 

[shinydarkrai94]

For those who are wondering what a "kind" is, there were probably no more than 2000 kinds and it's much different from scientific classification. It's generally pretty synonymous with the family classification.

For example, the word chayyah (beasts) can be split up into two words, behemah and chayyah ha'arets (hoofed beasts and beasts of the earth). Behemah can be split up into tahor (deer, antelopes, cattle, sheep, goats) and tame (other ungulates and hyraxes, pikas and rabbits). Chayaah ha'arets can be split into chayyath hassadheh (large mammals/reptiles) and it is also used to refer to other beasts such as large rodents.

Another example, sherets ha'arets (land swarmers) can be split into kol holekh 'al gachon (lizards and snakes), kol holekh 'al arba (small rodents and carnivores) and kol marbeh raghlayim (small invertebrates).

These categories (tahor, tame, chayyath hassadheh, kol holekh) are seen to represent the limits for the various kinds. Sometimes when trying to determining the kind, it is less clear simply because it is mainly a historical problem. We don't necessarily need a strict and exact definition for all the types of kinds, the primary point is that it's very unlikely that there were more than 2,000 kinds.

 

[shinydarkrai94]

Welcome to RF, Shinydarkrai94!

Thanks .

 

[tumbleweed41]

What does the word 'Theory' mean, in a scientific context

Essentially a hypothesis that's been tested for a while

Your answer reflects a common misconception of what constitutes a Scientific Theory.

A hypothesis is a proposition that attempts to explain a set of facts in a unified way. It generally forms the basis of experiments designed to establish its plausibility. Simplicity, elegance, and consistency with previously established hypotheses or laws are also major factors in determining the acceptance of a hypothesis. Though a hypothesis can never be proven true (in fact, hypotheses generally leave some facts unexplained), it can sometimes be verified beyond reasonable doubt in the context of a particular theoretical approach.

A scientific law is a hypothesis that is assumed to be universally true. A law has good predictive power, allowing a scientist (or engineer) to model a physical system and predict what will happen under various conditions. New hypotheses inconsistent with well-established laws are generally rejected, barring major changes to the approach. An example is the law of conservation of energy, which was firmly established but had to be qualified with the revolutionary advent of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle.

A scientific theory is a set of statements, including laws and hypotheses, that explains a group of observations or phenomena in terms of those laws and hypotheses. A theory thus accounts for a wider variety of events than a law does. Broad acceptance of a theory comes when it has been tested repeatedly on new data and been used to make accurate predictions. Although a theory generally contains hypotheses that are still open to revision, sometimes it is hard to know where the hypothesis ends and the law or theory begins.

The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2010

 

[FDRC2014]

Change in an organism over time.
Random mutations

Giraffes that grew a long neck got more leaves than others? I would assume? Of course, it's not as simple as simply growing a neck .

Two groups of organisms are separated and the genetic variety changed so much that they could not reproduce

Essentially a hypothesis that's been tested for a while.

Random mutation

Natural selection is change, where as SOF implies that anything that is not physically fit will not survive.

Being able to reproduce I think.

Mating two species and creating a new one? Random mutations?

Well, I'm homeschooled and I've never really taken an evolution class before, so I'm not sure if I got all those right .

I don't think the issue so much is whether creationists understand natural selection. I think most do, and simply don't think that it's probable that natural selection can account for what we observe today in only 1ba. It's hard to even find an observable change in which new information is added (not duplicated, added). For example, downsyndrome and bacteria digesting nylon, etc, only duplicate existing information.

Sort of right.
Much of our DNA is duplicated, then mutated.
An example of this would be our ability to see colour.
We originally just had one monochrome gene, this was duplicated to form two identical genes, one of which mutated to react to another wavelength of light, this gave us an advantageous dichromatic vision, then this duplicated and mutated to form trichromatic vision, which we have. We have 3 genes which are all slightly mutated duplicates of an original, that react to red, green and blue light; these can (like pixels) give us perception of all the different colours we see.
The same goes for many other things, if we can evolve colour vision, then it's not that hard to evolve legs and arms.
Really as you know, height is genetic, so is limb length. If it is advantageous to have long limbs, then we will evolve long limbs.

Also, you can see in the lab new genes being created. If you expose a load of bacteria to radiation (to mutate some genes, this happens naturally), then add some antibiotic, sometimes during the replication process new bases are added or (through duplication then mutation) mutated, forming a resistance gene.
Just look up the evolution of MRSA, thats evolution over a short time.

 

[FDRC2014]

and as i've kept saying...its reached the limits that evolution will take it.

Its a hybrid and hybrids are the limits of evolution... .but its still from that same 'kind' group.

I dont think you understand evolution. It has no limit. The fact it can't breed with the parent if proof of speciation, if it could then speciation hasn't taken place.