Difference between revisions of "Talk:Biology and creation"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Creationists don't believe in evolution, and biology does not require evolution.) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::To answer your question on my usertalk (may as well state it here), I've got a zoology degree, have worked in the field of prosimians and am planning on starting a phd soon (hell I hope to become a professor one day, so perhaps I'm not worth listening to ;)). Also I've discussed this and these topics a fair old bit. Humblpi has basically got it. Mutation rates are pretty damn constant, not just in mammals but bacteria as well, the reason they evolve so much faster is their amazingly rapid generation time compared to ours. In short, if you're dealing with a 4000 year time period, mutation rates must have been through the roof (not only a very tiny population to work with, but also a hell of a lot to diversify to), and somehow avoid negative mutations (which are far more dangerous in small populations than large ones). YEC would have a lot of problems with biology (all related to evolutionary concepts, but there are a few). OEC can indeed accept every part of biology unscathed (depending of course on their beliefs). It just seems like a very short article, containing barely any information, and that which is contained needs to be qualified in many places.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT) | :::To answer your question on my usertalk (may as well state it here), I've got a zoology degree, have worked in the field of prosimians and am planning on starting a phd soon (hell I hope to become a professor one day, so perhaps I'm not worth listening to ;)). Also I've discussed this and these topics a fair old bit. Humblpi has basically got it. Mutation rates are pretty damn constant, not just in mammals but bacteria as well, the reason they evolve so much faster is their amazingly rapid generation time compared to ours. In short, if you're dealing with a 4000 year time period, mutation rates must have been through the roof (not only a very tiny population to work with, but also a hell of a lot to diversify to), and somehow avoid negative mutations (which are far more dangerous in small populations than large ones). YEC would have a lot of problems with biology (all related to evolutionary concepts, but there are a few). OEC can indeed accept every part of biology unscathed (depending of course on their beliefs). It just seems like a very short article, containing barely any information, and that which is contained needs to be qualified in many places.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::: The article appears to be based on a comment I made [[Talk:Intelligent design controversy|here]], in which I said: | ||
| + | {{QuoteBox|Creationist biologists accept all the biology that an evolutionist accepts, but disagrees on how living things came about. That is, they agree on the observable ''facts'', not on the unobserved ''history''.}} | ||
| + | :::: But the claim that "evolution plays such a central part in modern biology, as an underpinning theory" is simply rhetoric, with little basis in fact. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4755/ here] for more. And (molecules to man) evolution is ''not'' an "observed fact". Nobody has ever seen a creature evolved into a different kind of creature. | ||
| + | :::: I'm curious about Raggs' claim of bacteria evolving fast: What have we ''seen'' bacteria evolving into (i.e. becoming something other than bacteria)? The point is, despite the rapid generation time, we have ''not'' seen them evolve (i.e. change into something else), yet if evolution were true, surely that's exactly what we would expect. In effect, it's a prediction of evolution that has been falsified. | ||
| + | :::: I don't understand the comment about mutation rates being through the roof if you're dealing with a 4,000-year time period. It ''seems'' to be suggesting that creationists believe that everything ''evolved'' from the first living thing, just as evolutionists claim, but over a period of 4,000 years. If this is what Raggs is saying, he is just showing his gross ignorance of the idea that he so readily tries to point out problems with. YECs don't believe in (molecules to man) evolution ''at all''. | ||
| + | :::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:51, April 10, 2008
Surely we need to qualify young earth and old earth creationists here? Because young earth creationists cannot agree with the biology of mutation rates, unless somehow suggesting that mutation rates were far higher, and constantly more beneficial just after the flood? Old earth creationists can perhaps accept all the same science as an evolutionist, except that of abiogenesis, but I suspect more often than not they believe that the animals have been design, and the hand of god has guided evolution, which is not a belief held by evolutionists.
I'm positive there are many other aspects of biology that young earth creationists would disagree upon.Raggs 12:45, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- Sorry, I don't understand. What is the "biology of mutation rates"? And why is that relevant to the article? --Ed Poor Talk 12:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- I assume Raggs means the rate at which mutations occur, and that would be relevant if there have only been a few thousand years since the flood. But I came here to say something a little different - surely it cannot be true that "Creationist biologists accept all the biology that an evolutionist accepts" - given that evolution plays such a central part in modern biology, as an underpinning theory and an observed fact. The article almost seems to be saying "Creationist biologists accept all the biology that an evolutionist accepts, except for the biology"! Humblpi 12:59, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- To answer your question on my usertalk (may as well state it here), I've got a zoology degree, have worked in the field of prosimians and am planning on starting a phd soon (hell I hope to become a professor one day, so perhaps I'm not worth listening to ;)). Also I've discussed this and these topics a fair old bit. Humblpi has basically got it. Mutation rates are pretty damn constant, not just in mammals but bacteria as well, the reason they evolve so much faster is their amazingly rapid generation time compared to ours. In short, if you're dealing with a 4000 year time period, mutation rates must have been through the roof (not only a very tiny population to work with, but also a hell of a lot to diversify to), and somehow avoid negative mutations (which are far more dangerous in small populations than large ones). YEC would have a lot of problems with biology (all related to evolutionary concepts, but there are a few). OEC can indeed accept every part of biology unscathed (depending of course on their beliefs). It just seems like a very short article, containing barely any information, and that which is contained needs to be qualified in many places.Raggs 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
- The article appears to be based on a comment I made here, in which I said:
- To answer your question on my usertalk (may as well state it here), I've got a zoology degree, have worked in the field of prosimians and am planning on starting a phd soon (hell I hope to become a professor one day, so perhaps I'm not worth listening to ;)). Also I've discussed this and these topics a fair old bit. Humblpi has basically got it. Mutation rates are pretty damn constant, not just in mammals but bacteria as well, the reason they evolve so much faster is their amazingly rapid generation time compared to ours. In short, if you're dealing with a 4000 year time period, mutation rates must have been through the roof (not only a very tiny population to work with, but also a hell of a lot to diversify to), and somehow avoid negative mutations (which are far more dangerous in small populations than large ones). YEC would have a lot of problems with biology (all related to evolutionary concepts, but there are a few). OEC can indeed accept every part of biology unscathed (depending of course on their beliefs). It just seems like a very short article, containing barely any information, and that which is contained needs to be qualified in many places.Raggs 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
Creationist biologists accept all the biology that an evolutionist accepts, but disagrees on how living things came about. That is, they agree on the observable facts, not on the unobserved history.
- But the claim that "evolution plays such a central part in modern biology, as an underpinning theory" is simply rhetoric, with little basis in fact. See here for more. And (molecules to man) evolution is not an "observed fact". Nobody has ever seen a creature evolved into a different kind of creature.
- I'm curious about Raggs' claim of bacteria evolving fast: What have we seen bacteria evolving into (i.e. becoming something other than bacteria)? The point is, despite the rapid generation time, we have not seen them evolve (i.e. change into something else), yet if evolution were true, surely that's exactly what we would expect. In effect, it's a prediction of evolution that has been falsified.
- I don't understand the comment about mutation rates being through the roof if you're dealing with a 4,000-year time period. It seems to be suggesting that creationists believe that everything evolved from the first living thing, just as evolutionists claim, but over a period of 4,000 years. If this is what Raggs is saying, he is just showing his gross ignorance of the idea that he so readily tries to point out problems with. YECs don't believe in (molecules to man) evolution at all.
- Philip J. Rayment 22:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)