Re: Speciation question


andrevan808@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> C.L. wrote:
> >snip
> >
> > By the way, creationists do not say (or should not say) that new species
> > have not been produced, but that this speciation is within the "kind" as
> > stated in the Bible, and involves no new genetic information but a
> > recombination of existing genes and in some cases a loss of genetic
> > information.
> > _______________________
> > I'm new to this topic and do not have a background in biology so please
> > reply in laymen's terms if possible; and please be respectful as I'm not
> > here to argue but to learn --thanks.
> > C.L.
>
> You are correct, speciation does occur from a creationist point of
> view, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.

No kidding!
What is the 'creationist model' by the way? Where can I find it clearly
expressed, how can it be falsified, and what evidence supports it?

> You are correct about created 'kinds' as well.

Ah, well perhaps you can help me: what is a 'created kind', and how can
I identify one? I've read any number of creationist source, and they
all define kinds differently, or in a very confused way. There are
evidently equivalent to no rank accepted by taxonomists - they have
been defined at every level from species to Kingdom. The only concensus
appears to be that no matter how profound the contradictions it sets up
elsewhere in taxonimic terms, human beings are not in the same kind as
apes.

I conclude from this that there are only two 'kinds': 'homo sapiens',
and 'everything else'.

Can you confirm this?

> No new genetic information is EVER added to an organism.

So gene duplication, followed by mutation of the duplicated section is
not adding information.

What do you call this process, incidentally?

> www.answersingenesis.org and www.trueorigin.org may be of help to you.

Oh yes! They are a great source of misinformation. You can pretty well
guarantee that any information presented on either of those sites is a
distortion, misrepresentation, or a falsehood.


Have a look at True.Origins:
"This site was established to provide an intellectually honest response
to the claims of evolutionism's proponents (including, but not
limited to, the likes of the "Talk.Origins" newsgroup and
website)."

FALSE - it isn't intellectually honest.

"Most advocates of evolutionism subscribe to a set of naturalistic and
mechanistic-if not humanistic-philosophical presuppositions,
attaching a "fundamentalist" bias to their perspective."

FALSE - scientists investigate the world using the tools of science.
Their religious beliefs are irrelevant.

"This fact (which they zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists'
credibility, disqualifying them from any claim to objectivity in
matters concerning origins and science. "

FALSE - it's not a 'fact', it's an unfounded assertion.

"Much of the material published by evolutionists embodies precisely
such a pseudo-scientific bias, often articulated under the pretense
that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced
study."

FALSE - it isn't 'pseudo-science', it's science and published in many
of the same scientific journals as other sciences.

"The contributions posted at this site give expression to the "other
side"-dispelling the two most popular myths perpetuated by most
advocates of evolutionism, namely:"

FALSE - they are not myths, but the best scientific interpretations of
the evidence

"1. The myth that today's heavily popularized beliefs about
macroevolution find "overwhelming" or unequivocal support in the
data of empirical science"

FALSE - it's not a myth: it's a fact that the data in empirical science
(and what other forms of science are there, by the way?) supports
'macroevolution'.

"2. The myth that the alternative-biblical creation-somehow fails
to find any compelling, corroborative support in the same data"

FALSE - it's a fact that the biblical creation accout is unsupported by
evidence.

"The question of origins is largely a matter of history-not the
domain of applied science."

FALSE- the "question of origins" is nowadays largely investigated (in
terms of allocation of financial resources at least) by studies in
genetics.

"Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one's
worldview does indeed play heavily on one's interpretation of
scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning
origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor
measurement-the three immutable elements of the scientific
method-may be employed."

FALSE on four counts.
1 - evolutionary theory makes predictions which can be observed
2 - evolutionary theory provides outcomes which can be measured
3 - evolutionary theory make repeatable predictions
4 - although one's worldview may affect the interpretation of
scientific data, 'evolutionists' are no more affected by this than
proponents of any other branch of science.

"Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming
exclusive "scientific" status for their popularized beliefs, while
curtly dismissing (if not angrily deriding) all doubters, and spurning
Darwin's advice."

FALSE - proponents of 'evolutionism' - by which I presume the author
means evolutionary scientists - make no claims to exclusivity. On the
other hand, they don't accept claims which are unsupported by evidence
or argument any more than to scientists in any other discipline.

"This site is one answer to such unreasonable-and
unscientific-practices.."

FALSE - the practices of evolutionary scientists are neither
unreasonable nor unscientific.

Phew! That's the whole of the introduction page of the site, and so far
I've not found a single sentence which does not contain an outright
falsehood.

Ah well - perhaps AiG can do better.
Why not look for yourself.

Oh, and by the way: here's my analysis of an AiG article purporting to
answer the question "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as
Australia?".

http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/kangaroos_and_the_flood/kangaoos.htm

Note that the best answer they give is that purely by chance, a diverse
group of marsupials made their way from the near East to Australia, and
that purely by chance no placentals accompanied them.

Persuasive?

RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... scientists are not in doubt - the ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... evolution of man. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes"
    ... means of introducing Creation studies into the classroom. ... Astrophysicists (or something like "Mainstream scientists") checked ... Putting quotes around the word "science" in this context is a veiled ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Ayalas New Book
    ... Perhaps Nic interprets the title to mean "religion, ... to science," rather than "Darwin's gift to both science and ... yet one of their scientists says otherwise. ... Evolutionists who say that science has nothing to do with religion ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Question of Faith: the Root of the Problem?
    ... The basic problem that occurs when debating creation is that ... scientists are convinced that the scientific method leads to truth, ... There are no absolutes in science, ... is that what's being debated here is faith. ...
    (talk.origins)