Evolution fallacies met head on

[hisgrace26]

I'm not really knowledegable in the area of evolution but maybe I can use some of the help from here.

Creationists expect creatures changing into a new kinds. One of the response I get is that creature doesn't simply change like that. The changes are not always necessary and are very small not even noticable in many generations. Fossils are rarely form and required certain conditions so only when you looked at it from a longer time scale you will notice this change. Furthermore, we are also a transitional form in itself.

What's the creationists take on this? Is there any varacity to support this claim?

Also what's the creationists interpretation of artificial inbreeding, such as donkey and horse. Isn't that evolution

 

[dad]

I'm not really knowledegable in the area of evolution but maybe I can use some of the help from here.

Creationists expect creatures changing into a new kinds. One of the response I get is that creature doesn't simply change like that.

Generally, they don't. Not in this present time. In the farr past when most of the changes happened it was likely fast. Also most animals and man could likely not even fossilize, so would not be in the record at all. The fossil record is severely limited then!

The changes are not always necessary and are very small not even noticable in many generations.

In this state, yes. But not in the former state when almost all the evolving happened.

Fossils are rarely form and required certain conditions so only when you looked at it from a longer time scale you will notice this change. Furthermore, we are also a transitional form in itself.

No. There is no longer timescale. The fossil record also was incomplete because man and mist animals could not fossilize probably.

Also what's the creationists interpretation of artificial inbreeding, such as donkey and horse. Isn't that evolution

Evolution is fine, but remember it starts from what is there. In the past that would be the kinds that were created and here. The rest is fantasy.

 

[hisgrace26]

But isn't that assumes evolution has happened? Evolution happened because it happen quickly we don't see it. That's an excuse. So of course they don't work that way (if I understand it correctly) that's what creationists been saying all along. Creationists only thinks it works that way because that's what evolution theory claims.

 

[dad]

But isn't that assumes evolution has happened?

Yes FROM the created kinds and very fast in the former times.

Evolution happened because it happen quickly we don't see it. That's an excuse.

Nothing is an excuse, we either know or not. Science does NOT know fast or slow. They just know about present state evolving. That of course is slow. I might point out that it also starts with a creature though!

 

[ChetSinger]

Also what's the creationists interpretation of artificial inbreeding, such as donkey and horse. Isn't that evolution

Hello! Is it evolution? Depends on what you mean by the word "evolution", because there are at least two different definitions common use:

1. The scientific definition, usually phrased something like "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next".
2. The story that we all evolved upwards from cells through fishes through mammals, etc.

I think zorses indicate that zebras and horses share a common ancestor and are still genetically close enough to mate. I believe God created an original ancestral kind of horse, and that their genome has undergone that first definition of evolution ever since.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm not really knowledegable in the area of evolution but maybe I can use some of the help from here.

Creationists expect creatures changing into a new kinds. One of the response I get is that creature doesn't simply change like that. The changes are not always necessary and are very small not even noticable in many generations. Fossils are rarely form and required certain conditions so only when you looked at it from a longer time scale you will notice this change. Furthermore, we are also a transitional form in itself. What's the creationists take on this? Is there any varacity to support this claim?
Also what's the creationists interpretation of artificial inbreeding, such as donkey and horse. Isn't that evolution

Most all humanity understands survival if the fittest. And everyone sees changes from parents to offspring.
Some Creationists claim that "Kinds" can't change into other 'Kinds".
Without a clear definition of "Kind" those ideas can't be proven one way or the other.
Most people agree that "microevolution" occurs, or small changes to a "Kind" or species.