It's notable that in the PhysOrg gene survey article, the lead author of the relevant paper is quoted:Like this thread. Starts out with what appears to be a sincere question...
Is it that you actually want to see what people think? Or is it.... just the same old, same old?
I certainly can't answer your 'how many kinds' question... but, you know the simple answer to the rest of your question is that (no offense to anyone) it may be that most creationists haven't traditionally been into the biological pursuit of things. That doesn't make it right, but it is also argued that many of the conclusions drawn from that pursuit aren't right either.
And, what man can give a credible response for God’s work? I just 'believe everything was created' and there is 'insufficient scientific evidence for macroevolution' in the process.
And so on. You "just believe" that creation is real and you "just believe" there is not enough evidence for macroevolution. Why? What is your argument? What is your evidence?
Because, well, you just do.
In this (or any of the other threads I perused) thread you never once offered evidence for either of those things you "just believe", you just assert it in a few different ways, often times combined with snark and condescension. At best, you link to something that you likely first read about on some creationist website, and just reiterate/rephrase in some way what was mentioned there.
Like where you write:
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
“The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.”
More rationale for the possibility that God created in quick bursts by divine intervention. Darwin (and the concept of macroevolution) led scientists, and their desire for a natural explanation for life, down a rabbit hole that they are unwilling to back out of, and only dig deeper.
That paper was cited here:
Study: Species are “compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
And the UD folks really liked it, so they also cited it again here:
Adam and Eve reappear in a recent study
and other creationist types cited it here:
Is It Becoming Safer to Doubt Darwin? | CEH
and here:
Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species
and here:
Almost all species on Earth today came into being at about the same time, scientific study declares
and here:
QCCSA - Quad City Creation Science Association - QCCSA.org
and... Well, you get the picture. Which of those did you get it from? Or some other creationist site?
Regardless, I had to laugh at how overcome with glee all of those creationist/right-wing extremists were to read the news release. Which makes me believe that they didn't read it either, just relied on that one quote, and I am sure none of them read the actual paper:
https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Stoeckle_Thaler Human Evo V33 2018 final_1.pdf
Of interest, the authors felt the need to put this disclaimer on the article:
Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years. This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or "Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events.
Guess they had seen the wave of creationist misappropriation it had generated. The science itself was interesting, but their conclusions are specious - they drew conclusions based on a single mitochondrial gene. And apparently there were some questions about their methodology as well - this paper was discussed here on CF a little over a year ago - pitabread found this:
Did All Species Arise about 200,000 Years Ago?
One of the comments there:
"So, to be clear, this seems to be very problematic study, with results that are wildly overstated. They have a provocative title, but are no way able to justify it."
One of the comments in the original thread in which this article was first discussed on CF:
sfs: "I considered the article. The description is a breathlessly overexcited report about a deeply flawed -- I would go so far as to say hopelessly flawed -- study. I'm not surprised that the original study appeared in a lower tier journal."
Side note - isn't it interesting what one can find using the internet...
Do you think your creationist/conservative source read the actual paper itself? Did YOU?
Or the criticisms? Almost certainly not.
Sorry to have so belabored one seemingly minor point - but this is really a trend among creationists, this game of telephone wherein one creationist sees something in a news release, writes a blog post about it, and by the end of the week, 200 creationist websites have re-posted or written their own versions of some crazed, breathless proclamation that "Darwin is dead!!!" And a month after that, 1000 creationists have paraphrased what THOSE creationists wrote on various discussion forums.
It is almost comical to witness.
And then we have you - starter of seemingly legitimate threads, but whom can only maintain the facade for so long.
"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.
"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."
"It is more likely that—at all times in evolution—the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."
In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.
I don't see how that helps ID'ers or creationists...
Upvote
0
