Young Earth Creationists: can you respond to this article arguing that species evolution is a certainty?

Question

Summary: I'm wondering if there are any well-reasoned arguments opposing any of the claims made in this article.

Here is the article, from a very reputable source:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150803-how-do-we-know-evolution-is-real
It explains the theory of evolution in simple terms and also describes in simple terms the available evidence.

My personal opinion is that the article is accurate - but I'm not looking for agreement with my opinion. As I said above, I'm looking for any well-reasoned arguments disputing any of the claims made in the article.

So, my question is this: apart from the idea that your understanding of Genesis disagrees with that article, and that you trust Genesis more than you trust that article, what is it about the information in that article that is in error? You can address an individual topic addressed in the article (if you like). You can answer as simply as you like, as long as you use a well-reasoned argument to contest at least one point made in the article.

Answer 1

I'm not a young earth creationist, but even if I was, I wouldn't have a problem with evolution. Evolution is something that happens once you have an organism. That means God made the earth and the creatures evolved after that. It is the concept of common descent that goes against the Biblical account.



Here is the real problem. There are some nice examples in the article of adaption. However, although we have observed the grey wolf turn into a chihuahua in human history, a chihuahua is still the same species as the grey wolf. They didn't jump the species barrier. They have the same arrangements of chromosomes.

The real difficult issue with adaptive evolution as proposed by Darwin is that no matter how many changes an organism undergoes, they do not change their chromosome arrangement, which is what is required for jumping the species barrier.

This article presents it as if it is an easy process. A fish changes slowly after generations and millions of years and become a lizard. Then why does the lizard have a different number of chromosomes from the fish? It is not just a matter of growing legs and changing appearances. You actually have to have some mechanism to change the chromosome arrangement.

Answer 2

It's quite a long article and I'm not up to an exhaustive review of it here but if you'd like to ask a specific question I'll do my best to answer. basically there are a lot of holes in their argument.



Creationists generally accept that speciation within the created kind can and does happen. So Noah didn’t need to take pairs of American badgers, Eurasian badgers, hog badgers, honey badgers, ferret-badgers, weasels, stoats, ferrets, minks, sables, polecats, martens, fishers, wolverines and otters on board the Ark—he only needed two ‘badgers’!



[edit] So let's look at the first example in the article.

Suppose you want to breed chickens that lay more eggs. First you must find those hens that lay more eggs than the others. ... eventually you'll have hens that ... lay ten times as many.

These changes from generation to generation are called "descent with modification".



This sort of descent with modification is mentioned in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. You start with hens and you finish with hens. They might or might not be separate species, but they are still clearly the same kind.



There is nothing here to support the idea of universal common descent from a common ancestor. Nothing here to refute Creation.



If you have a more compelling example from the article I will be glad to comment on that.



[edit] Better yet, what is the BEST example from the article?

Answer 3

a well organized and thought out question. Since nobody's answering, I'll take a shot. 1. We probably mean 'genus', but we really don't know what your definitions mean. We don't have a problem telling the difference between a bird and a crocodile, and understand that they can't mate. 2. There are a few ways to look at this. It's not that scientists aren't smart (although many have agendas), but they can be easily fooled by an omnipotent deity. Perhaps god set up the world just to look this way. Yes, we are scared of nuclear weapons and power plants. Aren't you? 3. Hey, when you've only got 6000 years to work with, there's really no time for speciation to different kinds. Limited time (in and of itself) is the limiting factor here. We just can't imagine 'billions' of years. It makes no sense to the human brain or human condition.

Answer 4

Well....I'm not going to read that entire article....but I'll say this. Wolves, coyotes, beagles, hounds, and all the differing breeds of dogs had a common ancestor....probably a dog, or a wolf- one way or another. But that is not evolution- one specie turning into another- it is variation "within" a specie.....they are all of the dog kind. We see that every day.

Now, when a bird becomes a lizard, or a rat becomes a clam- then you have something for show and tell.

Answer 5

That was a long article. Too long for a response on Y!A. So let me just say categorically that every issue they brought up has answers on Creationist sites. For instance, we agree that you can breed dogs and get variety, but it's not a sufficient explanation for common descent. We agree that there are mutations. Again, not sufficient. Fossils: read Carl Werner's Living Fossils 2. Dino-bird - look it up. There are thousands of arguments against that one. An appeal to Lamarck? LOL! My kids weren't circumcised when they were born. As to human skulls vs. apes, look at "Lucy, She's No Lady" by Dr. Menton. It doesn't speak to every human skull vs. every ape skull, but it will give you tools enough to make an educated guess - which is all anyone can do on this.



We agree that evolution happens in the sense that children look different than their parents. We don't agree that there has been time enough for common descent to happen, let alone sufficient evidence to deny Genesis. Someone will look at Genesis and say, "See, a miracle there, and we know miracles can't happen, so it's false." Then they'll preach that it's false and convince people. They'll look at a mutated pumpkin and say, "There you go, evolution!" People will be convinced. We know too much to be convinced of that.



To get you started on some counter arguments, take a look at Bill Cooper's "After the Flood" - which is free to read online. Look at it in conjunction with Josephus' Antiquities. Book 1, ch. 6 has a list of nations and how they descend from Noah.



In summary, it's not the evidence for evolutionism that we find troublesome. It's the counter-evidence. If I didn't have the counter evidence, I would believe in evolution, even if it looks dumb to me. There are no other realistic theories out there.

Answer 6

Hello,

I would like to point out some errors. I will make my priori. There is a God and prior to evolution we must address the cosmos. The article does not mention a starting point for the bigger picture. Evolution, according to science, starts from the “Big Bang.” They skipped a lot that needed to happen prior to getting to natural selection.

Genesis 1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Life is obviously fine-tuned. If the sun were a few feet closer, or further away, life could not be sustained. According to science this is by chance and circumstance. It would take one in a quintillion, (which is equal to one billion billion) for this to be correct. Count all the sand on earth and you would still not get this number.

In the article, Steve Jones of University College London in the UK states, "It's a series of mistakes that build up." If evolution, the way the article describes were true, the universe had to again evolve to a point of perfection. Water is a substance needed for life and it can never be destroyed.

Genesis 1:6 “And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” Roughly put; even if the universe aligned itself perfectly within the cosmos, it just so happened to produce a substance that virtually everything needs to survive. The probability of that happening is another number beyond human understanding.

The parodic tables were all by error as well. Every breath you take has, at one time or another, been associated with another living organism. Individual molecules are constantly rearranged and recycled through biochemical and geochemical processes. This is again all by mistake of course.

Let’s speed up for sake of brevity. If evolution were true, according to science, then there are still a variety of problems. Genome variations are differences in the sequence of DNA from one person to the next. In fact, there are more than three million differences between your genome and anyone else. You were made to be different for a reason. An ape does not have the same sense of self like humans. If 97 percent of DNA is junk, the differences are huge between the remaining percentiles. Science will have you believe we are so close to chimpanzee but in reality this is false. Scientists claim every human genome is different because of mutations—"more mistakes."

Evolution is something that happens all the time just not the way this article reads. You were not the same person you were a Nano second ago as 500,000 cells died and replenished. In a single day it is estimated that billions of cells dye and replenish. Every living thing is constantly evolving. Do the strong survive? The answer is yes. Do living species adapt to overcome their environment? The answer is again yes. However, if science and theology shake hands all this will actually make sense. Without a God, science tells us everything is a mistake, which somehow produced perfection. The human eye and the brain firing billions of neurons along with synapses is a miracle. NASA could send you off to another planet and you can still love a person here on earth. Love transcends and defies space and time. When you dream again you defy space, time, and matter. This is beautiful and clearly not erroneous. There will always be a missing link in science. The link is filled when God is introduced.

The Hebrews and Greek philosophers debated these same theories and science has always failed when God was taken out. I hope this helped in your quest for truth. God bless you!

Answer 7

The article is simplistic in that it addresses the concept of DNA as it is known today but fails to postulate the origin of initial DNA. For any species to reproduce itself, that is at the heart of the work of DNA. The notion of launching from a soup of inanimate chemicals into even a single cell capable of reproducing itself with its DNA having to have a minimum of one hundred thousand "base-pairs" is predicated on a profoundly godless and mindless faith. As to the adaptability of species, perhaps God made them that way. Why does that notion dictate evolution?



The Lord made this very promise: that for those that refused to believe the truth and therefore be saved, He would send them a strong delusion so that they would believe a lie. While the Apostle Paul was talking in the context of events related to the end times, in 2 Thessalonians 2, he was not specific as to the rejected "truth", other than it certainly can reasonably be applied to belief in evolution.



One reason that I know that evolution is hooey is that there is only one species out of the tens of millions of animal species on this planet that has risen to the intelligence of man and that is man only; yet man is the only species that is in rebellion or at odds with his Creator. And, according to the Bible, only man was given that right to have free will to do so. Q.E.D.

Answer 8

@Tigger



Ok. Kinds = 35 "body Plans." Please list the 35 Body Plans.



What OBJECTIVE criteria would allow us to determine if 2 organisms are the same Kind (Body Plan) or different Kind. Speciffically, are humans and bonobo chimpanzees the Kind? If not, what OBJECTIVE criteria says they are different?



Tigger did define Kind as the 36 Phyla. (See below) But, that still leaves him with the human/chimpanzee question above. Humans and chimps are both chordates (phylum) and vertebrates (sub-phylum). So, by his argument they share a Common Ancestor, but that is NOT evolution.





BADGERS AND THE ARK



When faced with a logical inconsistency even the Creationists wind-up coming up with their own version (Wrong) of evolution. In the following example from a Creationist website, a pair of badgers from Noah's Ark are the Common Ancestor of 10 SPECIES of badger, plus, 4 GENERA of badger, plus, the entire Mustelidae FAMILY (otters, badgers, weasels, martens, ferrets, minks and wolverines) of related species. YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!! They tie themselves in knots saying that a single pair of badgers are the Common Ancestor for 3 (count them) levels of Taxa, BUT…. That is not evolution.



http://creation.com/badger



The logical fallacy they are stuck-with is: There is NOT sufficient space on the Ark to hold "two of every living kind," even if you only count modern species. If you include extinct species the problem is orders of magnitude worse. There plain flat is not enough room. The only solution, short of a miracle not mentioned in the Bible, is for most of the pairs to be Common Ancestors for most of the species, genera, and families we see.====> If the Bible is LITERALLY true, then evolution must be also. There is no way around that simple piece of logic.



DEFINITION OF KIND



"Kind = those creatures that could breed together immediately after Creation. " – CRR



Ok, is that a usefull, objective definition? Are humans and bonobo chimpanzees the same Kind? How can we know? We and they are both members of Hominidae. At some point as we and they split off from our Common Ancestor, they could have bred together. So, there is nothing amazing about humans and bonobos having a common ancestor and being the same Kind.



CRR’s second try at a working definition of Kind:

“Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.” – CRR quoting Kirk Durston



http://p2c.com/students/blogs/kirk-durst…



Humans and bonobo chimpanzee genomes match up with less than 0.2% difference. An insignificant difference. So, by the above definition provided by our resident Young Earth Creationist, CRR, humans and bonobos are the same Kind (I agree) and had a Common Ancestor. You will have to agree that humans and bonobos are more similar than, say, badgers and otters and CRR’s own site says they are the same Kind.



Kind = 35 basic Body Plans - Tigger >>> The 36 Phyla of the Taxonomic Classification System. How that can work into Creationism is anybody’s guess. The use of Phyla presents a problem for Creationism because it forces them to embrace Decent from Common Ancestors and that is a serious "can of worms" for Creationists. You must claim decent from a Phylum (Chordata) to a Sub-Phylum (Vertebrate) is not evolution. Yet, that step alone involves a clear gain in genetic information (how to build a backbone).



Kind = Carbon Chemistry in Aqueous Solution Based Life Forms - OldPilot (and most Biologists) When our spacecraft looks for "life" that is what they look for. It is the ONLY kind of life known and chemistry and physics strongly suggests that other systems are very unlikely.



Creationists: There is only one Kind, Carbon Based Life. There, I defined Kind for you. If you disagree, lets hear your definition. REMEMBER: Your definition must provide an OBJECTIVE criteria to determine if 2 organisms are 1 Kind or different Kind

So, I can argue that evolution is true because every single living thing on earth is the same Kind of life, Carbon Based Life. There is no other Kind of life.



Every living thing on earth is "Descent with modification within Kind." Evolution is adaption and modification of Carbon Based Life.



AT LAST CREATIONISTS AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST AGREE!



Wonder If I will get a Nobel for unifying biology (I could use the money :-) )

Answer 9

@Tigger... you are showing your lack of biological knowledge again. "formation of subspecies within an existing genus." That's not how it works. Subspecies are within an EXISTING SPECIES. I hope that was just a slip on your part and not an indication of a lack of real information.



@CRR "I'm not up to an exhaustive review " ... is it because you are a hypocrite and have called evolution a "false religion"? Is it because you don't know what a science is and have no understanding of the scientific method? Is it because you get most of your information from Creationist websites? Is it because you have said "Dinosaurs were created on the sixth day along with all the land animals and man."



But now we can see clearly you and other Creationists don't have a clue about how to objectively define your biblical "kinds"... a term that has no meaning in biology. We now have both you and Tigger on the same question. What fun. You have used "kinds" for species, genera, families, and even orders. And now Tigger says it applies to classes and even PHYLA. ROFL. So tell us CRR, since there are 36 phyla... how many "kinds" were created by God during Genesis week? Tell us CRR how many SPECIES of mustelids were around BEFORE "NOAH'S ARK"?



If you claim there was only one species/kind = the two badger kind... then how do you explain no speciation before the "flood" but a massive (but undocumented) speciation after? It's absurd, illogical, and non-evidence based.



It just makes you and other Creationists out of touch with reality. So the two badger "kind" on the "Ark" produced 10 species and 4 genera on MULTIPLE continents with what... 4,500 years since the flood but now Tigger is using 2,500 years. Must have escaped the attention of all those biologists like Aristotle who didn't notice it, nor did it leave any evidence. ROFL.



And yet you deny descent through common ancestry (how does that work for the badger "descendents"), macroevolution of genera (your statement which the badgers show), and you insist on a crazy, non-genetic basis that the "badger kind" had to have ALL THE GENETIC VARIATION OF EVERYTHING FROM BADGERS TO OTTERS TO EVEN WOLVERINE. And that speciation only occurs with a LOSS of genetic material... another absurd statement without any credible references. And the different mustelid species have different chromosome numbers which is another problem you conveniently forget to address.



This is getting more and more fun .....and your muddled thinking, unheard of genetic systems, illogical conclusions, predictions from your statements you either can't comprehend, or lie to yourself about, and contorted reality is exposed to the world for what it is.... a fraud on science.



At least Tigger hides behind the definition of "kinds" by using phyla... which exposes a pandora's box of problems that s/he hasn't considered. You on the other hand can't come up with an objective definition and have lied to the board you have provided it in the past... see: https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20150422132547AAsHtFE http://tinyurl.com/ojftrd2 So now there is no longer something called the "human kind" but instead you will have to include the platypus, opossum, echidna, bats, fish, frogs, Australopithicus, etc. all within the same kind as humans. Right? ROFL.



But keep up the good work....you seem to think yourself the official spokesperson for Young Earth Creationists... that self-importance is misplaced. You have no credibility on a science board and you do more to speed up the extinction of Young Earth Creationists than anyone I know on YA.

Answer 10

I'm here for entertainment. I'm not reading an entire article and then responding point by point, and very few would.

Answer 11

-Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.-Scott D. Weitzenhoffer



Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.



- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Answer 12

Nobody seriously questions variation with species or formation of subspecies within an existing genus. This of course is the most the article you present demonstrates!



Where does the article get into trouble.. When it asserts that Natural Selection + Mutations + very long periods of time will produce something novel above the level of species. (A new genus, or body plan for example). This extrapolation commonly referred to as neo-darwinism and was popularized by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene" in the 1970's The problem is, we have known this does not work as the article claims for 30 years.



Why doesn't it work?



The genes involved in formation of species and these changes affected by natural selection do not control the body plan or gross morphology.



1. Body plan is controlled by what are called homeobox genes. These specialized snippets of code direct the production of complex structures like limbs, eyes, certain organs etc, but they are not subject to natural selection evidenced by being stable across long periods of time and even across multiple taxa.



Lets examine the homeobox gene for the eye as an example. In the 1980's researchers isolated the homeobox gene for the eye in both the fruit fly and the mouse. These researchers spliced the fruit fly eye onto a mouse genome.. and got an eye as expected. But here is what they did not expect! They got a perfectly normal MOUSE eye from the fruitfly homeobox gene. Intrigued by those result the tried it the other way.. Guess what? When they spliced the homeobox gene for the mouse eye onto the fruit fly genome they got an eye.... A perfectly normal fruit fly eye. This team won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1995 for their work.



2. Gross morphology is controlled by epigenetic factors found in the cytoplasm of the germ cell. As is the case with homeobox genes, these factors are not subject to natural selection and are stable over long periods of time.



If neo-darwinism is correct then two creatures with identical chromosomes and so identical genes would necessarily be of the same species, because it is selection of the genes and chromosomes that control this. Enter experimenters in cross species cloning... Researchers denucleated a goldfish egg (genus Carassius) and replaced it with the nucleus of a carp (genus Cyprinus). The result? You had a fish with the identical chromosomal structure of a carp . But the the gross morphology (number of ribs, shape, vertebra etc) of a Goldfish. Two fish with identical chromosomes and identical genes one morphologically representing genus Carassius the other morphologically representing genus Cyprinus.



Conclusion,. All of the natural selection of alleles with or without mutations over any period of time will not produce a novel Genus, or body plan because the genes being selected do not control the genus and/or body plan.



Here is A hypothesis based on the current data: While it is true epigenetic factors do remain stable over long periods of time, they are also part of a feedback loop that connects with the environment and can acquire information and changes in response to environmental conditions within just a few generations. Even small modifications can produce big changes because a single factor can have effects across the entire genome including the expression of both homeobox genes and genes that code for traits. As long as there are only small fluctuations or a few niches that need to be filled, those niches can be filled by natural selection and generally you will not have acquired changes through the epigenetic pathways. But if you have large changes or a large number of niches to be filled, changes acquired through epigenetic pathways can produce a novel genus within only a few dozen generations. So we are are not talking about hundreds or thousands of generations and thousands of millions of years, we are talking about a novel genus forming withing a handful of years. The greater the number of niches within the biosphere that need to be filled, the more active the feedback loop between the biosphere and the epigenetic pathways the more rapid the formation of acquired traits and morphological modifications.



Starting with just 35 body plans (KINDS) and allowing for acquired changes in epigenetic pathways and speciation due to natural selection at the rates actually observed in nature and experimentally. The variation/biodiversity of life observed in the biosphere today could be produced in less than 2500 years. Put another way. If we recognize "KIND" to mean body plan, Noah could have loaded the ark with 500 individual creatures (7 pairs unclean 2 pairs clean) and by the time Moses lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, these 35 kinds could have evolved into the 30,000 species of land creatures are extant today.



I am not saying this did happen. I am saying based on observations in nature and the laboratory and measured rates of diversification this could have happened. This is also completely consistent with the language found in Genesis 1 (Let the earth bring forth land creatures) reproducing after it's kind (Body plan) and evolution (formation of species within a genus) coupled with formation of novel morphology (family and Genus) due acquired epigenetic traits is in no way in conflict with the Creation accounts in Scripture.



The only potential objection Biblical Scholars might have is that the word translated Kind from the Septuagint is "genus", while my use of KIND is more consistent with phyla.





@ OldPilot:



Kind = 35 basic Body Plans - Tigger (Still waiting for an OBJECTIVE description of what a Body Plan is and a list of the 35 types.



Actually I answered you question: I am not the one who came up with 35 Body Plans, That come from the science of Zoology Body plan is defined as "an assemblage of morphological features shared among many members of a phylum-level group" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_plan







All that other stuff you cut and pasted really has nothing to do with my response!