Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
This again depends on who you talk to. Its generally between 4500 and 4350 years ago.
Remember, you need to compress everything down to around 6000 years. So the animals hyperevolved, quickly changing right after the flood, then all of a sudden the hyper evolution stops and reverts to the slower type of evolution.
Which makes perfect sense.
The speciation would have grown and have been facilitated at an exponential rate due to the changing characteristics of the enviroment coupled with the also changing physical conditions of their surroundings after the flood. Currently things are a bit more settled and the world wide niches are not changing at the same rate which led to the rapid speciation.
Their offspring might be sterile, which shows that the evolution has a limit.
I think it shows that they have evolved to the point where they are no longer "compatible" with one another for mating purposes. Something which would take a rather long time to occur. Do they have a common ancestor, I think that goes without question, the question is... how far back does one need to go to get to that ancestor.
__________________ Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals. I get my back into my living. I don't need to fight, to prove I'm right. I don't need to be forgiven.
For example there was a large cat kind on the ark. No Lions and no Tigers. I don't know what that cat kind looked like.
We do know that the lion and tiger are members of the same cat kind because a lion and tiger can mate and produce offspring.
Sometime after being left off of the ark the lion and tiger MICRO-evolved from the original ark cat kind.
Given the diversity of the Felidae family, that would be macroevolution, not only into different species, but also different genera. Odd, I thought you didn't accept that level of evolution?
__________________ Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. - Botanical Society of America's Statement on Evolution
How on earth do you know it took 7 million years for the horse to evolve; especially so when even the idea of so called evolution is itself in question. Even the late evolutioist Stephen Gould said there are no transitional forms in the fossil; record & here you are saying we KNOW the horsie has evolved in 7 million years. Somebody is BAD wrong here & Gould being a super evolutionist I believe him !
The funny part is that some creationists mistakenly argue against this hyper evolution.
To get back to our friends questions, it is often said by creationists that these main "kinds" were the most genetically diverse of their kinds, they then "deevolved" to what we see today.
obediah001: Source please (of gould).
Originally Posted by DURANG0
Which makes perfect sense.
The speciation would have grown and have been facilitated at an exponential rate due to the changing characteristics of the enviroment coupled with the also changing physical conditions of their surroundings after the flood. Currently things are a bit more settled and the world wide niches are not changing at the same rate which led to the rapid speciation.
I like the hyper evolution better than the slow long ages type, cause there are NO (as Gould stated) transitional forms in the fossil record; so I ask why are there so many folks still supporting a false theory of long age evolution when the hyper evolution better explains the abscence of fossils, scientifically of course?
Given the diversity of the Felidae family, that would be macroevolution, not only into different species, but also different genera. Odd, I thought you didn't accept that level of evolution?
They evolved into different genera? I don't think so. There was a couple of cat kinds on the ark. You should knowby now what happened when they were released from the ark.
I like the hyper evolution better than the slow long ages type, cause there are NO (as Gould stated) transitional forms in the fossil record; so I ask why are there so many folks still supporting a false theory of long age evolution when the hyper evolution better explains the abscence of fossils, scientifically of course?
Actually the flood explains the gap in the fossil record better than PE.
Linear Mode
