Creationist "arguments" - different karyotypes

[SLP]

Creationists in general seem to have a rather tenuous and arbitrary grasp on science - and this includes the ones with educations supposedly in science.

One of the several "genetics" arguments that creationist like plagiarizing or paraphrasing is one in which they claim it impossible for creatures with differing karyotypes (numbers/types of chromosomes) to be related via evolutionary descent.

When I see such arguments, I know that the creationist has made no attempt whatsoever to verify the validity of the argument. it just sounds compelling, and they originally heard it/read it from a creationist, so they just know that it must be a winner.

And since humans and chimps have karyotypes that differ by 1 chromosome (never mind the compelling evidence that our Chromosome 2 is a fusion of 2 ape chromosomes), they will assert with great confidence, humans cannot be related to other apes!

And yet.... we have examples of living mammals that have karyotypic polymorphisms - the muntjacs, for example.

These critters have nearly identical appearances:

Yet have wildly different karyotypes:

I guess they are different Kinds, and we just added another Kind to the ark. Good thing these guys are pretty small.

But what about these two chaps:

Oh dear... Equus caballus (2N=64) and Equus przewalskii (2N=66) exist. They can interbreed and produce fertile hybrids.

Creationist "genetics" is so confusing.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Creationists argue in a vacuum. Especially where genetics is concerned. For instance, in the Equus example above creationists will argue that "kind" is defined at the genus level and therefore the 2 animals above are indeed the same "kind". But, of course this blows up the karyotype argument because they have different numbers of chromosomes.

There are many examples like this throughout creationist musings on "kinds" and actual genetics and they never make any attempt to resolve them.

 

[SLP]

They seem capable only of 'addressing' the argument at hand, with no acknowledgement or grasp of how their current particular argument impacts their 'bigger picture'. They will claim in one context that Kinds on the ark were at about the level of the Family in reality-based taxonomy, yet will claim other species are individual kinds when asked for evidence for their post-flood diversification, not realizing that this undermines their whole 'ark Kinds = Family" thing.
Amazing to watch.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They seem capable only of 'addressing' the argument at hand, with no acknowledgement or grasp of how their current particular argument impacts their 'bigger picture'. They will claim in one context that Kinds on the ark were at about the level of the Family in reality-based taxonomy, yet will claim other species are individual kinds when asked for evidence for their post-flood diversification, not realizing that this undermines their whole 'ark Kinds = Family" thing.
Amazing to watch.

So, what do you propose can be done to help Creationists become better informed or even educated?

 

[SLP]

So, what do you propose can be done to help Creationists become better informed or even educated?

No idea.
You can lead a horse and all that.
It is like most of them don't WANT to know any better.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No idea.
You can lead a horse and all that.
It is like most of them don't WANT to know any better.

It's probably because the approach and demeanor of someone like Richard Dawkins has been prevalent in the media for about a decade, or at least until more recently, and Fundamentalistic Christians may think that to 'adapt' their thinking must mean letting go of their faith in Christ. Of course, we know this doesn't have to be the case, but some folks have been told by one source or another that this is indeed the case.

So, if atheists would like to facilitate and educate various Christians, they might want to consider a more amiable way of doing so rather than simply carpet bombing Christian websites with what ends up looking like Satanic Spam, when in fact evolution has really nothing to do with the fact that one is atheist or Christian.

 

[SLP]

It's probably because the approach and demeanor of someone like Richard Dawkins has been prevalent in the media for about a decade, at least until more recently, and they think that to 'adapt' their thinking will mean letting go of their faith. Of course, we know that doesn't have to be the case, but some folks have been told by one source or another that this is indeed the case.

Handling with Kid gloves, 'in your face', etc.... Doesn't seem to matter.

When someone will produce an already-refuted set of claims, have it refuted again, only to re-post it a few weeks later - can we really lay that at the feet of someone that was 'mean' to them?

So, if atheists would like to facilitate and educate various Christians, they might want to consider a more amiable way of doing so rather than simply carpet bombings Christian websites with what ends up looking like Satanic Spam, when in fact evolution has really nothing to do whether one is atheist or Christian.

IOW, Christians that spam the internet with PRATTs and advocate for the jailing or deportation of people that understand the science better than they do are just thin-skinned snowflakes that need coddling?

Sorry - been there, done that. Got accused of not being a 'real scientist' like Feynman for not explaining a series of articles presented in response to a creationist that had asked only for a list. That was about 22 years ago. Nothing has changed since, except that I gave up writing mini-theses explaining my position.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So, what do you propose can be done to help Creationists become better informed or even educated?

Tell them to pray to the Father in heaven more, to read the Bible more, and that's about it, for anyone really.

 

[Sam Davis]

Most Creationists are people of faith and take the Genesis account based on faith.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Creationists in general seem to have a rather tenuous and arbitrary grasp on science - and this includes the ones with educations supposedly in science.

GOOD soldiers do not get entangled in the world affairs ....

2 Timothy 2:4 A soldier refrains from entangling himself in ...
2 Timothy 2:4 A soldier refrains from entangling himself in civilian affairs, in order to please the one who enlisted him.
Good News Translation. A soldier on active duty wants to please his commanding officer and so does not get mixed up in the affairs of civilian life. Holman Christian Standard Bible. No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in the concerns of civilian life; he seeks to please the recruiter.

 

[SLP]

Most Creationists are people of faith and take the Genesis account based on faith.

Sure - then why do they try to attack evolution with what they erroneously think to be scientific arguments?
And why, when their errors are explained, do they persist in making the same arguments?

 

[SLP]

GOOD soldiers do not get entangled in the world affairs ....

2 Timothy 2:4 A soldier refrains from entangling himself in ...
2 Timothy 2:4 A soldier refrains from entangling himself in civilian affairs, in order to please the one who enlisted him.
Good News Translation. A soldier on active duty wants to please his commanding officer and so does not get mixed up in the affairs of civilian life. Holman Christian Standard Bible. No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in the concerns of civilian life; he seeks to please the recruiter.

Then why are you here, cluttering up a thread with bible stuff?

 

[Sam Davis]

Sure - then why do they try to attack evolution with what they erroneously think to be scientific arguments?
And why, when their errors are explained, do they persist in making the same arguments?

Maybe your bias has you automatically assuming others are wrong. When you say “they” are you lumping all creationists into the same category?

Darwinism Under The Microscope is a good book that presents intelligent design. You should check it out.

 

[expos4ever]

So, what do you propose can be done to help Creationists become better informed or even educated?

I don’t think the issue is scientific literacy. The creationist will not accept any evidence that challenges their belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. We need to help them see that their Christian worldview will not suffer a fatal wound if they accept that the creation account is metaphor.

A talking snake? Come on man.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don’t think the issue is scientific literacy. The creationist will not accept any evidence that challenges their belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis. We need to help them see that their Christian worldview will not suffer a fatal wound if they accept that the creation account is metaphor.

Sounds like you have a good plan.

A talking snake? Come on man.

I understand your insinuation, but are all folks who might take the name "Creationist" advocates of a literal reading about a talking snake?

 

[miamited]

Hi SLP,

So, your basic argument is that God could not have made creatures that look the same with the karyotype issue that you're bringing up? I'm just wanting to make sure that I'm actually understanding the point of this thread before getting involved.

Yes, I readily admit that this 'karyotype' science isn't within the realm of my understanding, as I imagine it likely isn't in most people's. But, if you're willing to take the time to educate me, I'll be happy to listen to any argument that says that God can't have done what He is said to have done because of...

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Sam Davis]

A talking snake? Come on man.

I personally believe the Genesis account and take it as literal. All things are possible with God.

It’s quite probable that the snake was possessed by Satan. That is not an impossiblity.

 

[miamited]

I personally believe the Genesis account and take it as literal. All things are possible with God.

It’s quite probable that the snake was possessed by Satan. That is not an impossiblity.

Hi sam,

Of course, the Scriptures tell us it was a serpent and then in Revelation we are told that the serpent was Satan. So, I'm not sure this idea that it was a 'snake' is even true about what the Scriptures actually say. I think that a lot of folks may get confused when God's judgment upon the 'serpent/snake' is that he crawl on his belly all the days of his life. But I do agree with you that it's also possible that it could have actually been a possessed snake. Does anyone remember the pigs? That was just 2,000 years ago with apparently a lot of people watching as witnesses.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Does anyone remember the pigs?

Unlike Wilbur (Charlotte's Web), those pigs did not talk.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I understand your insinuation, but are all folks who might take the name "Creationist" advocates of a literal reading about a talking snake?

Remember some politicians and religious leaders have been called snakes.


And the one who pretends to be "an angel of light", i.e. the devil....