Home > FreeHovind > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: The Creationist Definition of Evolution
The Creationist Definition of Evolution
8 Comments - 15372 Views
And why it's not true.
Submitted By WWDD on 09/03/17
FreeHovind, WWDD, Creation and Evolution 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

I’m going to clear up these misconceptions once and for all. I’m tired of creationists making up their own definitions of how evolution works, so here’s my attempt at explaining the 4 most common mistakes:


1. We didn’t “come from” monkeys, or anything else that’s alive today for that matter. As clearly implied by the word ancestor, our common ancestors are long gone. In a family tree, it would be impossible to pick two cousins from the same generation and claim they “came from” one another. If that were true, they wouldn’t be cousins. Think of all the species alive today as a generation. We’re not related because we gave rise to one another, but
because way back in the tree something gave rise to all of us.


2. Ancestors are not a hybrid of two species. This is the fallacy in the famous “crocaduck” argument. The last common ancestor of a crocodile was a reptile, and the last common ancestor of a duck was a bird. Going way back, there would be a reptile-bird ancestor... but this species would not be a mix of the two. It would be neither reptile nor bird, instead exhibiting traits that the two have in common rather than their differences. Having trouble grasping this idea? Well turns out many of so-called “missing links” have already been found. For example, they have bones from anthracotheres, the common ancestor of the hippo and the whale. Google it if you want to see pictures of what it looked like.


3. Speciation is not caused by random DNA mutations. Although mutation plays a small role by increasing genetic variation, it’s far from being a crucial factor in evolution. The formation of separate species is mainly the result of environmental changes, like the availability of new food sources, the loss of a habitat, or the colonization of an isolated piece of land. Natural selection isn’t a matter of chance or luck.


4. Evolution and the big bang theory are completely independent. You don’t have to accept the big bang to accept evolution, and vice versa. I personally don’t know enough about the big bang theory to even form an opinion on it. Stop making evolution synonymous with this false idea that “everything came from nothing”.

» Reply to Comment
Re: The Creationist Definition of Evolution
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/17 - 19:13 GMT
^^ thanks a million WWDD!
now lets hope they FINALLY quit using those arguments.
» Reply to Comment
Re: The Creationist Definition of Evolution
1 day - 1,411v
Posted 2009/03/18 - 14:37 GMT
you wouldnt think anyone would argue with that. There will always be semantics but this is good.
» Reply to Comment
Re: The Creationist Definition of Evolution
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/18 - 14:44 GMT
ehm Kent? you do know that some of the creationists on this forum have...like..CONTINUESLY been using the false arguments to try to "refute" or "debunk" evolution......even though we have like...explained that they were using these false arguements..like everytime..
» Reply to Comment
Re: The Creationist Definition of Evolution
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/18 - 16:12 GMT

WWDD says, "way back in the tree something gave rise to all of us" in the first paragraph. This is interesting because scientists have discovered this creature. It's called 'Phascolarctos cinereus.' Here's a picture of it.
http://www.planetozkids.com/images/animals/adult-koala_1.jpg
» Reply to Comment
Re: The Creationist Definition of Evolution
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/03/18 - 16:51 GMT
I honestly can't tell whether or not you're being facetious.
» Reply to Comment
Re: The Creationist Definition of Evolution
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/03/18 - 16:13 GMT
WWDD says, "way back in the tree something gave rise to all of us" in the first paragraph. This is interesting because scientists have discovered this creature. It's called 'Phascolarctos cinereus.' Here's a picture of it.
http://www.planetozkids.com/images/animals/adult-koala_1.jpg
» Reply to Comment
Re: The Creationist Definition of Evolution
12 hours - 1,085v
Posted 2009/03/18 - 18:34 GMT
Actually it was a single cell.
» Reply to Comment
Re: The Creationist Definition of Evolution
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/18 - 18:49 GMT
bigdog,... what is it with you and koala's?
 


GenTime: 0.0243 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2020 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff