15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?ch...5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=2&catID=2

Courtesy of Newscientist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

scientific American you mean?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a false premise, creationists don't agree with Darwinian evolution, they do agree with evolution per se.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah, whats not to believe? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution-per se

 

Darwinists try to frame the argument in saying that creationists don't believe in evolution, but creationists do believe in variation within syngameons, not in "goo morphed into you." The former is sound science, the latter is Disney material.

 

Where have you been for the last several months?

 

I apologize, you may have read me say that before, and yes, I express it this way, like other creationists saying "micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution."

 

It doesn't seem so, unless they just want to hide in the shadows.

 

There is a distinction between Darwinian evolution and observable variation within syngameons, which is the same distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution.

 

Discrete morphological units which are interfertile.

 

The "species" of turtles which are interfertile up to the family level.

 

Well, you did morph from a zygote into your current form over the space of a few decades, so I don't see what you think is so incredible about similar changes occuring as a result of accumulated mutations over a sufficient number of generations.

I'd say microevolution implies macroevolution: you'd expect units similar to begin with to diverge in form as a result of accumulating random changes. If this doesn't occur, I'd say it was your job to propose a negative feedback mechanism within evolution that prevents speciation from occuring, as well as evidence for its existence.

So what do you do the day you find, say, species A that can breed with members of species B, and species C that can also breed with members of B, but not with A?

 

That's for the biologists to work out, there obviously will be some gray areas where there is apparent morpholical affinity, yet no demonstrated interfertility, but there are still thousands of syngameons versus millions of species.

 

Huh?