Red Queen Hypothesis

[omnitude]

Hello,

This is my first post on the forum. I'm looking at evolutionary biology and have come across the Red Queen Hypothesis. I've tried to find some arguments from a Creationist point of view against the hypothesis but Google has been sparse.

From my understanding, some creationists point to the Cambrian Explosion (a period of rapid developing genetic diversity) and point towards divine creation for this. The Red Queen hypothesis was then postulated by evolutionary biologist (saying that the genetic diversity arises because of the environment and co-evolution of other species living together).

My question is, what is the creationist argument towards this. Hope this does not come across as a troll in anyway and I hope I have posted in the correct forum.

Thank you!

 

[miamited]

Hi omnitude,

Welcome to the threads. I'm a young earth creationist as most define the various versions of 'how we got here' understandings. Personally, I think of myself as just a regular born again believer in the one true and living God, but we're a people that have to assign various names for every variance in what people believe. I've never heard of the red queen hypothesis and so, I really can't give you any answer. Just wanted to welcome you. I hope that you find what you're seeking.

But, I will say this. For me, all hypothesis or 'proofs' of evolution are not correct. God's word, for me, pretty clearly describes that He created all the species and they create after their own species. He made all the animals just a couple of days before He made man and all of this was about 6,000 years ago. Not enough time for any kind of evolutionary mumbo jumbo. Of course, I fully understand that there aren't a lot who agree with me, but there are some.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[SkyWriting]

The Red Queen hypothesis was then postulated by evolutionary biologist (saying that the genetic diversity arises because of the environment and co-evolution of other species living together). My question is, what is the creationist argument towards this.

Young Earth Creationists point out that science doesn't work backwards very well
and that scientists just make up modifications to their pet religion stating that
all life is naturally sourced.

"Creationists" say God was responsible for life. Some think more direct, some less.

Your "Red" theory says that life constantly changes just to keep in one place. I can see
that it opposes the "theory of Kinds", but YE Creationists don't bother with the variety
of stories people make up about evolutionary origins anyway.

 

[juvenissun]

Hello,

This is my first post on the forum. I'm looking at evolutionary biology and have come across the Red Queen Hypothesis. I've tried to find some arguments from a Creationist point of view against the hypothesis but Google has been sparse.

From my understanding, some creationists point to the Cambrian Explosion (a period of rapid developing genetic diversity) and point towards divine creation for this. The Red Queen hypothesis was then postulated by evolutionary biologist (saying that the genetic diversity arises because of the environment and co-evolution of other species living together).

My question is, what is the creationist argument towards this. Hope this does not come across as a troll in anyway and I hope I have posted in the correct forum.

Thank you!

You are searching in the wrong direction.
The only thing you need to consider is to find some problems about the Red Queen hypothesis. And I am sure it is quite easy to find tons of them.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hello,

This is my first post on the forum. I'm looking at evolutionary biology and have come across the Red Queen Hypothesis. I've tried to find some arguments from a Creationist point of view against the hypothesis but Google has been sparse.

From my understanding, some creationists point to the Cambrian Explosion (a period of rapid developing genetic diversity) and point towards divine creation for this. The Red Queen hypothesis was then postulated by evolutionary biologist (saying that the genetic diversity arises because of the environment and co-evolution of other species living together).

My question is, what is the creationist argument towards this. Hope this does not come across as a troll in anyway and I hope I have posted in the correct forum.

Thank you!

First you have to have life for life to change.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen in the species.

Neither the Asian nor the African evolved into the Afro-Asian. The Asian remained Asian and the African remained African.

Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is variation seen in the species.

Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. The Husky remained a Husky and the Mastiff remained a Mastiff.

If evolutionists had never seen a living dog and knew nothing about them but fossils, they would claim the Husky or Mastiff evolved into the Chinook because the Chinook would only be found later in the record. Worse yet they would claim they were seperate species.

90% of the fossil record has been improperly classified as seperate species to support their beliefs, when like the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook; or the Asian, African or Afri-Asian they are merely different infra specific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong.

There is no evolution of one species into another nor any evidence it can happen. There is only incorrect classifications of infra specific taxa as seperate species when they are not.

Now let's be clear that adaptation is not evolution. If you took a million black rabbits and placed them in northern climes you would eventually end up with white rabbits. But they would still be rabbits, will always be rabbits, and will never become anything other than rabbits.