Creation? Evolution?

what is a missing link? how does something fit inbetween two others without creating new gaps between itself and the two other things?

take the gross example of a fish to a reptile. if you find something that's 50% fish and 50% reptile, is that a missing link? what about 75% fish and 25% reptile and 25% fish and 75% reptile? what is the smallest % that makes a "smooth" transition from one thing to another?

how does creation explain australia's diversity of marsupials? isn't that pretty strong evidence of macro-evolution? there are a large number of animals you'd only find there and they're all very distinct from those found anywhere else -- and distinct in a VERY fundamental manner. the obvious implication is a common ancestor with macro-evolution taking place from that ancestor after australia was seperated from the rest of the land masses of the world.

 

"how does creation explain australia's diversity of marsupials? isn't that pretty strong evidence of macro-evolution?"


No one, including creation scientists, disputes that so-called "micro-evolution" (variation within a type of organism) caused by natural selection occurs and may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type.Almost all touted evidences for evolution are of this category (like Darwin's finches, the "peppered moth", or bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics). However, it is important to note that "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is taking place, as no increase in complexity (such as the development of a new organ) is being generated, but merely the emphasis of some already present traits over others.

 

the man has got a point....

 

"A couple of issues that make the first two chapters of Genesis hard to take on face value:

1) There is a different order of creation described in chapt2"



The Bible often restates important points. As an example, the first four books in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all biographies of Jesus. Scholars have learned over time that these four “views” of Jesus give us a better understanding of Him than we would have had if only one account had been recorded. The same is true of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 describes all the physical events of creation. Genesis 2 looks back at the creation of humans more closely. Genesis 2 may appear to be a little different from Genesis 1, leading some people to believe there is a mistake in there somewhere. This is a problem caused by translation from the original Hebrew into English. Careful attention to the verb tenses in Hebrew and to the purpose of each chapter removes any apparent contradictions between the two. For example, Genesis chapter 2, verse 19 (Gen 2:19) uses the perfect tense, indicating finished actions regarding the creation of the animals. That is, the animals brought to Adam were created earlier, not created in Adam’s presence. Chapter 2 is a “look back” at the last half of chapter 1.

 

so what you're saying is that wombats, koalas, kangaroos, bandicoots, etc are all products of microevolution? why not apes and humans?

 

That's not what I'm saying at all..I don't believe in micro evolution. I believe God created koalas, kangaroos, apes, and humans. There are lots of web sites on this subject if you want to do some reading.

 

I wouldn't necessarily consider "microevolution" a misnomer. Based on the dictionary definitions of "evolution," added complexity may be involved, but not necessarily. Adding "micro" to the word might mean "a little evolution" comparatively speaking. I've always taken it to mean evolution on a smaller scale; as within some species rather than across all species.

On the complexity issue, though, wouldn't brain development, intellectual capacity, have to be considered an increase in complexity--especially in the case of humans? I'm not just talking the size of the brain, but the increase in "connections" within that bring added abilities. In particular, look at human development of computer technology. We have effectively created devices that can "think" & solve problems much faster & more accurately than we can. Not that computers are "smarter" than us; but they are an extension of our own abilities, allowing us to accomplish amazingly complex tasks exponentially faster.

 

I was referring more to the order of Adam being put on earth before plants in ch. 2, unlike in ch. 1 (or more accurately, ch. 1 through ch. 2:4) where the plants are created on the third day and man (plural, btw) is made on the sixth day.

With regards to the Gospels, there are a number of discrepancies between them, but there's no use in hijacking this thread on that tangent.

 

still, your definition of microevolution (if it includes the pantheon of australia's marsupial population) would seem to include the placental mammals' counterparts -- everything from rats to sheep to lions. which makes the relatively subtle difference between chimps and humans an onvious case of micro-evolution.

however, since that's not what you believe (and i can't say i blame you) care to shed some light on what you do believe? i know there are plenty of sites out there, but they're not all compatible.

do you believe the flood story? if so, do you think it's coincidence that the marsupials all pretty much ended up in australia and that placental mammals pretty much didn't? or do you think that australia is the marsupial israel, promised by god to his chosen animals? or perhaps they were created in place? do you believe in plate techtonics at all?

 

what exactly is the smaller scale? the longest journey's all begin with a small step. of course all the documented examples of natural evolution are "micro" evolution. the evolutionary process is for the most part very slow. however, the more we learn of the genetic code, the more it becomes clear that small changes in the genes can make large changes to the animal.

there have been experiments where flies were irradiated to increase the mutation rate from generation to generation. what they discovered were functional flies with deformities such as extra pairs of wings, extra thoracies, etc. given the means that cells replicate, it's not hard to imagine that the genetic code contains some internal system to control the number of splits that take place. a simple mutation of this control mechanism and suddenly you've got twice or four times or eight times the brain.