Creationists: What are the reasons general acceptance of deep time and evolution

[Damian79]

Comparing Human, Chimp, and Mouse Genomes | Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering

Mouse are at 34% and chimps at 95%, with the same comparison including non coding DNA. You can either take that 98.5% as fiction or as one without non coding dna.

These scientists say we share a common ancestor with mice about 75 million years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Comparing Human, Chimp, and Mouse Genomes | Center for Biomolecular Science and Engineering

Mouse are at 34% and chimps at 95%, with the same comparison including non coding DNA. You can either take that 98.5% as fiction or as one without non coding dna.

These scientists say we share a common ancestor with mice about 75 million years ago.

That is a more accurate article. It is also rather dry in comparison with the other.

And no, the 98.5% is not fiction. Why did you claim that? It was made with another technique. So you have three different techniques for measuring DNA between these two articles. The first used one particular version to get the 98.5% for chimp and man, then they used another version for man and rat, and this article uses a third method to get the man,chimp, and mouse similarities.

As I said you want to be sure that you are comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

 

[NannaNae]

This is a question for creationists, primarily young earth creationists.

What, in your opinion, is the reason that the scientific community - and the public more generally - accepts evolution as the prevailing model for biology and also deep time as the prevailing concepts for geology and cosmology?

Note that I'm not asking you to explain why you are a creationist or what you believe, or to defend your position.

What I'm interested in is what reasons you think that evolutionary biology is the generally accepted explanation for the diversity of life and that there is scientific concordance about the ages of the earth and the universe.

It is a scientific conspiracy? The influence of satan or other supernatural forces? Is it man deliberately misleading himself?

What is your explanation?

I think this athests describes science better than any creationist I know..


from cosmic tusk

Tusk TV: Younger Dryas Event at 27:00 minutes « The Cosmic Tusk

from here he says

"200 years ago all of the thinking about geology was that all the evidence of striations on rocks, plus all the evidence of erratic boulders, etc., was wrapped around Noah’s Flood or some such flood. And within decades that same evidence was miraculously seen to NOT support a flood at all, but ice ages. So, science can wrap evidence around whatever the prevailing hypothesis (i.e., thinking) is. EVEN THOUGH the evidence hadn’t changed an iota. It was the THINKING that changed.

Do the same look back at tectonic plates and moving continents. I DO KNOW what preceded tectonic plates, and it was SILLY. I’ve mentioned it before – a shrinking planet with a crust that wrinkled as it shrunk. The orange skin model. And they had all sorts of explanations that fit that mold. But now they explain it around a different model. Different mindset, same evidence = different interpretation.

So, if off in the future the main body of astronomers choose to think in terms of an exploding planet, trust me, they will find all sorts of ways to make their evidence fit THAT model instead of the planetary nebula one.


this was just so ON it.
People believe what they want to believe.... they see what they want to see and the evidence never changed...they do ! they will do what they want ! ...... it is our time the time of men... our/ mankind's time is almost over.
then we will deal with the real truth..

can you just see the threads created now if these theory was all the same now . " we have proven orange peel crust and why do creationists deny the truth"
all the evidence for the truth has always been there but mankind's tiny little mind is the problem..

in the mean time there is zip truth out there except stuff hiding in that book. and God says few will find it, I sure hope I can... I am positive though everything else is a bad joke created in the hell and that void man created to go sin without a god.. that place that only exists between mankind's right and left ears. that place will never go to heaven... God's heaven is that places kind of hell.

 

[RickG]

I don't have that one in my collection.

Was it a 45rpm or a 33rppm?

Probably even more outdated, 78 rpm.

 

[RickG]

don't worry, they can't even explain the cambrian. They are dead in their tracks.

Darwin couldn't, but that was 150 years ago. Presently, it is quite well understood, as well as the fossil and geochemical record 3 billion years prior to it.

 

[NannaNae]

Oooppppsss

 

[bhsmte]

Mounting and Masturbation | ASPCA
Here is some helpful tips for training unruly and obnoxious puppies who don't have any self control ..I am sure someone here can use this .

Two questions:

Was this information helpful to you?

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[NannaNae]

Two questions:

Was this information helpful to you?

What does this have to do with the OP?

oh yes it was off topic... I was trying to address it to someone specific who is having real issues with control .. I may have gotten it on the wrong thread .
I will remove it .. sorry

 

[createdtoworship]

Darwin couldn't, but that was 150 years ago. Presently, it is quite well understood, as well as the fossil and geochemical record 3 billion years prior to it.

again if a simple refutation to the material is out of your league, why is it the evolution is presented here as a no brainer? why is it that evolution is presented as science when macro evolution lacks observation? it reminds me of the alleged 800 million year old fossils ( pre cambrian) that for the most part dont exist accept for what? sponges? common!

 

[Subduction Zone]

again if a simple refutstion to the material is out of your league. why is it the evolution is presented here as a no brainer? why is it that evolution is presented as science when macro ebolution lacks observation? it reminds me of the alleged 800 year old fossils ( pre cambrian) thatfor the most part dont exist accept for what? sponges? common!

You handwaved an argument in. All that it takes to refute it is a handwave in return

There are other Precambrian fossils, but they are exceedingly rare since there were no hard body parts before the Cambrian.

Put forth a bit more effort and you will get more effort in return.

 

[TLK Valentine]

again if a simple refutstion to the material is out of your league. why is it the evolution is presented here as a no brainer?

because it is.

why is it that evolution is presented as science when macro ebolution lacks observation?

Because the distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a figment of creationist wishful thinking.

Think of it in terms of gravity -- "microgravity" is the force that pulls everything down, whereas "macrogravity" is what keeps the planets in orbit around the sun.

of course, if you tried to use this to claim that Gravity was a lie, you would be laughed at -- and deservedly so.

it reminds me of the alleged 800 year old fossils ( pre cambrian) thatfor the most part dont exist accept for what? sponges? common!

So they do exist -- what's your beef?

 

[AV1611VET]

You handwaved an argument in. All that it takes to refute it is a handwave in return

There are other Precambrian fossils, but they are exceedingly rare since there were no hard body parts before the Cambrian.

Put forth a bit more effort and you will get more effort in return.

I thought after I made the point that there were no fossils in Genesis 1, you guys switched your story to: "Evolution can stand w/o the fossil record."

Now you're back to arguing fossils.

What's up with that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I thought after I made the point that there were no fossils in Genesis 1, you guys switched your story to: "Evolution can stand w/o the fossil record."

Now you're back to arguing fossils.

What's up with that?

Simple -- you thought wrong.

 

[RickG]

I thought after I made the point that there were no fossils in Genesis 1, you guys switched your story to: "Evolution can stand w/o the fossil record."

Evolution is demonstrated both with fossils and outside the fossil record. And I agree, there are no fossils in Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is a story, not a description of science.

 

[createdtoworship]

because it is.



Because the distinction between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a figment of creationist wishful thinking.

here is a peer review that says otherwise:

Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library

I dont agree with all of it, but it proves the point.

So they do exist -- what's your beef?

not very many organisms exist precambrian. So where are all the transitions?

 

[createdtoworship]

You handwaved an argument in. All that it takes to refute it is a handwave in return

There are other Precambrian fossils, but they are exceedingly rare since there were no hard body parts before the Cambrian.

Put forth a bit more effort and you will get more effort in return.

again, your argument is an argument from silence. Literally. And this reminds me of how when I ask for evidence of macro evolution, all I get is blank stares.

 

[Subduction Zone]

again, your argument is an argument from silence. Literally. And this reminds me of how when I ask for evidence of macro evolution, all I get is blank stares.

Well first off you used a nonsense term. There is no micro, there is no macro, there is only evolution. If we can show a change from a to b is possible, and that has been done many many times. You sometimes call it "micro" evolution. And we show a continuous string a few breaks from a to z then we have shown that evolution is possible. Your side is the one that wants to invent some insurmountable difference, yet you have not even been able to define it let alone show that it cannot happen.

When you get so called "blank stares" is because evolution has been proven many many times over.

Now once again you made a foolish unsupported argument. All it takes to show that you are wrong is to simply tell you that you have been told many times what you did wrong. There is no need for us to do the work again.

It is your turn now. What evidence, that has not been debunked hundreds of times, do you have for a young Earth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

here is a peer review that says otherwise:

Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library

I dont agree with all of it, but it proves the point.

not very many organisms exist precambrian. So where are all the transitions?

That does not look like a peer reviewed article, it looks more like a vanity press article. And I don't have time to see if Wiley fits that category right now. It seems that they are calling the evolution that results from punctuated equilibrium macroevolution. And trying to distinguish that from the slow steady state evolution that Darwin first proposed. The author does not really have anything new and is simply putting terms on different scales and types of evolution. I am not sure if I agree with his approach either. Especially in light of the way that creationists abuse those two terms.

 

[Dizredux]

That does not look like a peer reviewed article, it looks more like a vanity press article. And I don't have time to see if Wiley fits that category right now.

Wiley is pretty good. It publishes a lot of things in psychology especially in ADHD which is my area of interest.

As far as the journal goes, this is how Wiley reports it:

Edited By: Rudolf A. Raff
Impact Factor: 2.684
ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2013: 19/41 (Developmental Biology); 25/46 (Evolutionary Biology); 80/164 (Genetics & Heredity)
Online ISSN: 1525-142X

Just for information.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Well first off you used a nonsense term. There is no micro, there is no macro, there is only evolution. If we can show a change from a to b is possible, and that has been done many many times. You sometimes call it "micro" evolution. And we show a continuous string a few breaks from a to z then we have shown that evolution is possible. Your side is the one that wants to invent some insurmountable difference, yet you have not even been able to define it let alone show that it cannot happen.

When you get so called "blank stares" is because evolution has been proven many many times over.

Now once again you made a foolish unsupported argument. All it takes to show that you are wrong is to simply tell you that you have been told many times what you did wrong. There is no need for us to do the work again.

It is your turn now. What evidence, that has not been debunked hundreds of times, do you have for a young Earth?

I provided a peer review, and I will post it again, but here are many more examples that prove that macroevolution happens above the level of species:

(while micro happens at the level of species, taxonomically speaking)


the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

Evolution 101: Macroevolution
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

also some institutes of Biological Sciences:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium
A Peer review article also coincides:
"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."
Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x
Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution - Erwin - 2001 - Evolution & Development - Wiley Online Library

I assumed it was peer reviewed, but it doesn't state it is. Anyway here is more about the author and his qualifications of the article:

Douglas H. Erwin
Curator of Paleozoic Invertebrates

Smithsonian Institution
PO Box 37012, MRC 121
Washington, DC 20013-7012
Shipping Address:
Smithsonian Institution
National Museum of Natural History
10th & Constitution NW
Washington, DC 20560-0121