Atavisms

[Raithie]

I'm just curious as to how Creationists reconcile atavisms (evolutionary throwbacks).

Eg, mutant whales being born with femurs/tibia/fibula/toes or people being burn with functional tails etc.

So what's the Creationists response?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm just curious as to how Creationists reconcile atavisms (evolutionary throwbacks).

Eg, mutant whales being born with femurs/tibia/fibula/toes or people being burn with functional tails etc.

So what's the Creationists response?

Creationism has nothing to do with evolution and all its little peculiarities.

 

[Raithie]

Creationism has nothing to do with evolution and all its little peculiarities.

The post is addressed at the Creationists who dismiss evolution as being true in an attempt to express validity for ID.

If you believe Creationism to be true - why would you not address evolution?

 

[kharisym]

The post is addressed at the Creationists who dismiss evolution as being true in an attempt to express validity for ID.

If you believe Creationism to be true - why would you not address evolution?

Dismissing it to avoid responsibility for dealing with it. To be frank, the answer to this question from magic-thinkers is probably something ridiculous like "the fall"

 

[Cabal]

Creationism has nothing to do with evolution and all its little peculiarities.

Hey, don't try and palm off God's mistakes onto us.

 

[Cabal]

Dismissing it to avoid responsibility for dealing with it. To be frank, the answer to this question from magic-thinkers is probably something ridiculous like "the fall"

Agreed, answer will probably be Falldidit.

 

[Raithie]

Agreed, answer will probably be Falldidit.

That's pretty pathetic. Even for Creationist standards.

Any Creationist care to answer?

 

[Chesterton]

I'm just curious as to how Creationists reconcile atavisms (evolutionary throwbacks).

Eg, mutant whales being born with femurs/tibia/fibula/toes or people being burn with functional tails etc.

So what's the Creationists response?

I'm not a creationist but I don't see what genetic anamolies have to do with the idea of evolution. When conjoined twins are born are we supposed to deduce that all earlier lifeforms had two heads?

 

[Naraoia]

I'm not a creationist but I don't see what genetic anamolies have to do with the idea of evolution. When conjoined twins are born are we supposed to deduce that all earlier lifeforms had two heads?

Do we have any other clue that earlier life forms had two heads?

 

[Raithie]

I'm not a creationist but I don't see what genetic anamolies have to do with the idea of evolution. When conjoined twins are born are we supposed to deduce that all earlier lifeforms had two heads?

Except, atavisms aren't simple genetic anamolies.

Mutations don't spawn fully formed femurs/tibia/fibula/toes/tails unless they're atavistic. The genes are present for such apendages - atavisms are them simply being reactivated. Thus, evolutionary throwbacks.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you believe Creationism to be true - why would you not address evolution?

The answer is in your question.

I don't believe in historical evolution (i.e., abiogenesis → man), and I don't believe in non-biological evolution (i.e., big bang → earth), either.

Neither of which had anything to do with instant creation.

 

[Raithie]

The answer is in your question.

I don't believe in historical evolution (i.e., abiogenesis → man), and I don't believe in non-biological evolution (i.e., big bang → earth), either.

Neither of which had anything to do with instant creation.

Firstly, you do realise that I posted this in in the evolution vs creation subforum, yes?

Secondly, why would you willingly enter such intellectual dishonesty? Casting off any alternative, regardless of scientific validity, simply because it goes again a primitive books teachings, without actually acknowledging / contrasting the topic, is ridiculous.

Anyway, this is a diversion. I only wish to talk to Creationists who atleast understand the concept of subforums and discussion.

Anyone?

 

[rockaction]

The answer is in your question.

I don't believe in historical evolution (i.e., abiogenesis → man), and I don't believe in non-biological evolution (i.e., big bang → earth), either.

Neither of which had anything to do with instant creation.

Atavisms aren't "part" of the evolutionary theory - they are simply facts. Evolutionary theory is used to explain facts about biology, such as why atavisms are there. Atavisms are there, plain and simple. How do you explain why they are there, if you reject evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

Atavisms aren't "part" of the evolutionary theory - they are simply facts. Evolutionary theory is used to explain facts about biology, such as why atavisms are there. Atavisms are there, plain and simple.

So? what's your point?

Why are you asking creationists to explain it?

Aren't there enough experts in the field of evolution to explain it for you?

How do you explain why they are there, if you reject evolution?

I believe the OP wants to know how creationists reconcile it -- and I, for one, don't; and shouldn't have to.

Read the OP again, please.

It says 'born with' -- not 'created with'.

 

[rockaction]

So? what's your point?

Why are you asking creationists to explain it?

Aren't there enough experts in the field of evolution to explain it for you?

I believe the OP wants to know how creationists reconcile it -- and I, for one, don't; and shouldn't have to.

Read the OP again, please.

It says 'born with' -- not 'created with'.

But atavisms make no sense if creationism were true. Do you seriously live your life rejecting reality so you don't have to let it challenge your views? If your views are correct, they should be able to explain reality. So please state why God would create organisms with atavisms.

 

[AV1611VET]

But atavisms make no sense if creationism were true.

An atavism is not 100% endorsed by the scientific community and, in fact, is still under investigation.

Do you seriously live your life rejecting reality so you don't have to let it challenge your views?

Rejecting an atavism is not 'rejecting reality'.

Some scientists reject atavisms.

Is a hiccup an atavism?

If I disagree, am I rejecting reality?

If your views are correct, they should be able to explain reality.

Genesis 1 was not written to explain reality on the microcosmic scale.

So please state why God would create organisms with atavisms.

He didn't.

You do know that Genesis 1 says whales came before man, don't you?

 

[rockaction]

An atavism is not 100% endorsed by the scientific community and, in fact, is still under investigation.

Rejecting an atavism is not 'rejecting reality'.

Some scientists reject atavisms.

Name the scientists and show the papers that reject atavisms.

He didn't.

You do know that Genesis 1 says whales came before man, don't you?

Your point?

 

[Cabal]

Name the scientists and show the papers that reject atavisms.

It's funny how AV will just ignore something because there isn't a 100% perfect consensus on it, and yet he's a Christian.

Christians should be praying for the kind of level of agreement.

 

[Cabal]

An atavism is not 100% endorsed by the scientific community and, in fact, is still under investigation.

Rejecting an atavism is not 'rejecting reality'.

Some scientists reject atavisms.

I would call this Darwin's revenge, but you're a creationist.

Let's call this YHWH's revenge.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's funny how AV will just ignore something because there isn't a 100% perfect consensus on it, and yet he's a Christian.

That's right.

I'm not obligated to accept any science that contradicts the Bible; and even less if scientists themselves don't agree with each other.