StillLooking Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 I have been fascinated with creationism lately, I am trying to understand their logic. I thought that ring species would put an end to creationism, however it seems they can answer that too. (Wikipedia has a good explanation of ring species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) http://creation.com/birds-of-a-feather-don-t-breed-together The link basically said the seagulls discussed were "actually highlight the great variety and rich information which must have been present in the original created kinds". What he meant by the original apparently the pairs from the Noah's ark. He also made a correlation with wolf, dingo and coyote as "almost certainly ‘split off’ from an original pair on the Ark". In conclusion, according to him, what happened with the seagulls was actually we have less genetic information, not richer genetic information as evolution said (evolution theory according to him). At this point I am quite speechless. I think all creationists need to take a high school course in introductory of evolution.
Scottsman Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 It is absurd because you cant start with just two. They would go extinct. Also, if the flood actually happened you would expect to see animals species evolution starting in mesoptomia fossil wise. This isnt the case.
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 25, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 25, 2014 I don't even know where to begin with this, and I'm speaking as a biologist.
Scottsman Posted April 25, 2014 Posted April 25, 2014 I don't even know where to begin with this, and I'm speaking as a biologist. As a biologist could you break it down into 3 short paragraphs explaing why the creationists are nuts? Knowledge is power.
mymistake Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 Let us turn to the Bible for answers. Open your Bible to Genesis, chapter 4. Adam and Eve had a son Cain. And Cain married his sister. Cain had a son named Enoch plus other children. Then Cain built the thriving metropolis of Enoch which had a population of 5 and 1/2. Enoch (not the city but the man the city was named after) married his sister and they had a son named Inbred. Inbred's paternal grandfather was Cain. Inbred's paternal grandmother was Cain's wife. Inbred's maternal grandfather was Cain. Inbred's maternal grandmother was Cain's wife. All of Inbred's great grandfathers were Adam and all of Inbred's great grandmothers were Eve. Now the flood story would have us believe that every animal alive today came from such inbreeding after two of each kind survived on the ark?
Thurisaz Posted April 26, 2014 Posted April 26, 2014 ...In conclusion, according to him, what happened with the seagulls was actually we have less genetic information, not richer genetic information as evolution said (evolution theory according to him). At this point I am quite speechless. I think all creationists need to take a high school course in introductory of evolution. "What? I replied to your point!" And to one who judges the quality of a statement by its source, not by its truth or fallacy, that's a perfectly debate-winning statement because it comes from the right führer (da wholly babble / her fav babblical cretinist / her cult guru / whatever). Let's face it, typical cretinist "strategy". Puke out something, anything, as reply, even if it has no connection at all to the "opposition's" previous statement. As if the phenomenon of ring species would in any way depend on genetic information "growing", and even then, without providing evidence the cretinist "reply" doesn't mean shit. But force them into evolution 101 and it won't change anything either. Whatever they could learn in that class comes from The Ebilushenists and is therefore automatically wrong and irrelevant. I don't remember who once said that on this very site (been years ago)... "you can lead a fundamentalist to knowledge but you can't make her think". Don't try to argue with a cretinist (unless you for some reason find it funny to do that). Just quietly kick her face in and, while she's passed out, arrange to have her dumped into a psych ward. (I forgot) And yeah this idea about "all the Created Kinds came from the pairs on the Ark" is so hilariously absurd that it alone is perfect proof already that cretinism and all who adhere to it takes a daily routine crap on logic and truth. Assuming this to be true for a moment, all those species alive today would have had to "evolve" (gods forbid that a cretinist ever use the Evil E-Word though!) in such a short time, the needed "evolutionary speed" would be unbelievably higher than anything that true scientists propose. In essence, cretinists say "slow scientific evolution is bunk, instead it can all be explained by totally mindfuckingly absurd hyper-evolution!!!!1111!!!!oneoneone!!!!!eleveneleven!!!!". And if they understood the way the scientific brain works they'd even understand why we point at them and laugh every time they babble this shit.
☆ pantheory ☆ Posted April 27, 2014 Posted April 27, 2014 I have been fascinated with creationism lately, I am trying to understand their logic. I thought that ring species would put an end to creationism, however it seems they can answer that too. (Wikipedia has a good explanation of ring species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) http://creation.com/birds-of-a-feather-don-t-breed-together The link basically said the seagulls discussed were "actually highlight the great variety and rich information which must have been present in the original created kinds". What he meant by the original apparently the pairs from the Noah's ark. ................ At this point I am quite speechless. I think all creationists need to take a high school course in introductory of evolution. Yes, this is an interesting creationist perspective that seems to have its basis in logic (often a rare commodity for them ) as well as biblical. There is a mountain of evidence that supports natural selection which is one of the primary factors involved with biological evolution via genetics. We know there are other important factors such as epi-genetics, and other lesser known factors and processes such as ring species, where links in speciation remain as living examples. Although there is almost undeniable evidence for evolution most of it is still made up of missing links which requires much logic involving hypothesis and related speculation to explain the details of biological evolution. I think the fundies are using logic when they suggest a common single ancestor for ring species which are explained in the link above. Although this logic is probably wrong, in this case to explain ring species they are using one of the same arguments needed by evolutionists to explain common ancestors in diverging evolutionary chains. The common ancestor for fundamentalists relate to the Noah's arc fable. For their argument the "middle species" in a ring species would be supposedly the originating species. One of the main problems with their hypothesis would seem to be that a "middle species" is not more prevalent than any of its genetic neighbors, which seemingly should be the case if they existed for a much longer period of time. I expect that the fossil records of the middle species also would not support their speculation concerning a middle-species being a longer-lived species. But at least attempted logic would be involved, which is often a rusty unused tool for fundies
skepticalme Posted April 29, 2014 Posted April 29, 2014 You should point out that this is proof that humans came from apes since humans have 46 chromosomes and other apes have 47, dispite the fact our genomes are the same length. In humans, ape chromosome's 2 and 3 merged together. Telomeres are the start and stop sequences in chromosomes. Apes have telomeres at the beginings and the ends of chromosomes 2 and 3. Humans have telomeres at the beginning and the end of chomosome 2 and in the middle if where ape chomosomes 2 and 3 had merged.
Deva Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I found out long ago that creationists just make stuff up based upon their extremely poor understanding of the theory of evolution. While it might be entertaining and somewhat enlightening, It really isn't worth your time to trace their "logic" too far. Creationists present outright lies and misrepresentation. If they will do so before a Judge in a courtroom, the average person certainly has no defense against this kind of blatant foolishness being foisted on them. Any discussion which involves Noah's Ark as a literal reality is completely delusional. There is almost no part of modern Christianity that makes me so angry as creationists.
sdelsolray Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I have been fascinated with creationism lately, I am trying to understand their logic. I thought that ring species would put an end to creationism, however it seems they can answer that too. (Wikipedia has a good explanation of ring species http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species) http://creation.com/birds-of-a-feather-don-t-breed-together The link basically said the seagulls discussed were "actually highlight the great variety and rich information which must have been present in the original created kinds". What he meant by the original apparently the pairs from the Noah's ark. He also made a correlation with wolf, dingo and coyote as "almost certainly ‘split off’ from an original pair on the Ark". In conclusion, according to him, what happened with the seagulls was actually we have less genetic information, not richer genetic information as evolution said (evolution theory according to him). At this point I am quite speechless. I think all creationists need to take a high school course in introductory of evolution. The creationists' speculations above (highlight in bold) can be tested via the scientific method. Let see them propose the hypotheses, design the testing, do the hard work and publish their conclusions (based on the actual empirical evidence). Their religious beliefs are not relevant to these scientific inquiries.
VacuumFlux Posted May 1, 2014 Posted May 1, 2014 I was taught the "more genetic information in the inital creation" thing growing up. The idea is that in the original good creation, inbreeding wasn't an issue because there were no genetic defects. After the fall, DNA went downhill along with everything else, and that's why the small population after the flood and early patriarchs marrying close relatives didn't kill off the human race. They then argue that all speciation events are a "loss of information" where members of a particular "kind" (which is defined in groups even larger than a species) lost their previous ability to interbreed. Amusingly, that means that Ken Ham style creationists are arguing for faster and more dramatic evolution than the evolutionists are. When I was a kid, I liked these ideas. Not sure how much I actually believed them, but you have to admit that's a great setup for a sci-fi story (Revelations even lets you end it with crazy R-rated special effects and dramatic fight scenes). And it's so typical of humans to yearn for the never-really-existed Good Ole' Days.
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted May 1, 2014 Super Moderator Posted May 1, 2014 There is almost no part of modern Christianity that makes me so angry as creationists. Truth. And the fact that they are demanding the right to shove their ignorance down the throats of the next generation is simply unacceptable.
Recommended Posts