Re: Answering creationists
- From: Ye Old One <usenet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 20:24:33 GMT
On 4 Mar 2006 10:48:02 -0800, "Harvey" <harv65@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
Hello
I was wondering if some of the scientists(or anyone) who use these
boards to help me respond to a creationist who recently posted in the
Belfast Telegraph. I do not come from a scientific background so any
help would be greatly appreciated. It is quite a long letter and I do
feel comfortable answering some of the claims, though not others.
So here goes:
Claim 1: "proponents link it (evolution) with natural selection and
thus claim it is scientifically proven. Natural selection is not
evolution. The former involves the sorting and sifting of existing
genetic information whereas the latter requires the magical addition of
brand new genetic information as mutaions. This contradicts scientific
laws and has never been observed"
Mutations are nothing unusual, they happen all the time. Most are
harmless, some benefitial and some only produces minor bad effects
that may survive through a few generations. Even a mutation that is
negative at this time may prove benefitial in the future.
Yes, natural selection is part of evolution and it has been observed.
Claim 2: " ...given the recent claim repeating that DNA of humans and
chimps is only 4% different. Surely it is obvious to any clear thinking
person that a 4% difference is totally illogical. This subjective
figure masks the fact that it represents some 35 million supposed
mutations to base pairs, that there are over 35 million supposed
mutations to base pairs in humans and not in chimps, and a similar
number in chimps not in humans. It ignores the fact various genes are
in different sequences on the DNA, that humans have 23 pairs of
chromosomes whereas chimps have 24 pairs and many other factors."
The number of chromosomes isn't really as guide to the DNA
information. Chimp DNA is different from ours by between 1.5% and 4%
depending on which study you take. If we take the larger figure that
does not mean that 4% of our DNA has changed. It means that 2% of both
ours and the chimps has changed - a different 2% in each.
Claim 3: "much scientific evidence points to the historical nature of
the Biblical account of origins. This includes evidence for an earth
just a few thousand years old, e.g. the earths decreasing magnetic
field."
Most scientific evidence shows the bible account to be total rubbish.
Yes, the earths magnetic field is currently decreasing, it is overdue
for one of its cycle of flipping. Sometime in the future the north and
south magnetic poles will be reversed and the field will climb back up
to a maximum. See:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reversal#Magnetic_field_reversals
The repeating reversal helped prove sea floor spreading as it left its
magnetic imprint on the rocks as the lava solidified. Moving out from
the mid-atlantic ridge you therefore get bands of rock with
alternating north/south magnetic properties.
Claim 4: "The use of radiometric dating which gives a supposed age of
millions of years is flawed because of the unproveable assumptions
involved-different types of radiometric dating have yielded dates
differing by a factor of 1000 for the same sample."
Not quite sure exactly what he is talking about here. Different things
of different ages need different methods to get a proper dating. To
answer this question he needs tobe more spacific about the example.
Claim 5: "Genetic evidence shows that groups of creatures are unique
and distinct. Also, mitochondrial DNA shows that all humans are
descended from one woman and Y chromosome information shows that all
are descended from one man. Using scientifically determined rates of
genetic change, it is calculated that these two individuals existed
just a few thousand years ago".
Y-chromosomal Adam lived around 60-90 thousand years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosome_Adam
Mitochondrial Eve lived about 150,000 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
I recommend you read both articles to understand fully what is meant
by both the terms.
Claim 6: "... claims supposedly proving evolution but all can be
shown to be scientifically flawed".
Can they? I really don't think so. Now if we were to start talking
about the flaws in Genesis - well we could be here all day :)
--
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I do not like ignorance to go
unchecked.
Many thanks
Harvey
Bob.
.
- References:
- Answering creationists
- From: Harvey
- Answering creationists
- Prev by Date: Re: OT:Opinion Poll
- Next by Date: Re: 5 reasons to chuck Nando's Strawman.
- Previous by thread: Re: Answering creationists
- Next by thread: Re: Answering creationists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
