Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A simple reason why creationism is false

  1. Mar 3, 2004 #1
    I've read many posts in these forums defending and debunking creation but I don't think that anyone has mentioned this simple reason why not only creation is false but evolution is the only rational truth.

    It is a simple biological fact. A healthy population of a unique species can not grow from 2 individuals. It would require constant inbreeding and the gene pool would not be diverse as it is in all species. If evolution is a fact, and it is, this would never happen because unique species would arise slowly from large populations with a large gene pool. Mankind could not have risen from one man and woman. Creationism is false and evolution is truth.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 3, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 3, 2004 #2
    What you say about creation may or may not be true but the reason that you give is definitely wrong. there are countless examples of specific breeds of cats and dog arising from one animal. Also take Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands where one species of birds probably from one pair blown onto the islands genetically diverged to fill numerous niches in their environment.
  4. Mar 3, 2004 #3
    With regard to the breeds of cats and dogs, they are not distinct species and when an oddball is born it is not continuously bred with it's brothers and sisters. (Some breeders do do that but they are making genetic cripples that will have to be outbred sooner or later)

    The same goes for the species on Galapogos. You are making an assumption that only 2 birds ended up there and they just happened to be male and female of the same species. Very unlikely, much more likely that there were more that provided the genetic diversity necessary for a healthy population that later evolved into unique species only after creating a viable population.

    The Florida panther is a good example. The small population there led to inbreeding and genetic defects that were killing off the population even quicker. It took introducing close relatives, cougars from out west, to introduce fresh genes to straighten their genes out and make them healthy. If your theory is correct, they would have been ok with just being protected, they were far from ok and the cause was inbreeding and there were a lot more than 2.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2004
  5. Mar 4, 2004 #4
    I actually have a bigger problem with the whole universe being created in 7 days thing(or 3000 years, or whatever it is now that they take 7 days to mean)
  6. Mar 4, 2004 #5


    User Avatar

    As opposed to evolution, which proposes a healthy population growing from 0 individuals? :wink:

    The above is only useful, if we combine the other "argument" creationists use - the idea that no new genetic material can appear, and so evolution cannot occur. In that case, yes. We must pity Adam and Eve, developing with every genetic disorder in the book. [:p]
  7. Mar 5, 2004 #6
    So, perhaps we shouldn't take the Bible too literally then? Is this the best you can do? Granted, there is such a thing as being gullible and believing in things blindly but, that could apply to just about anything.

    Now what I would like to know, is why is that of all the creatures on this planet, only human beings seem to be capable of discerning the matter? Or, even care for that matter. And, if we're so far advanced over the other species, to where we can say hey, it's totally "irrational" to believe in God, then why don't any of the other species even begin to exhibit such "primitive traits" which, they apparently don't? :wink:
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2004
  8. Mar 5, 2004 #7


    User Avatar

    Tell that to the creationists.

    Because you are not looking hard enough. A wide variety of other animals have been observed to take on irrational, and useless actions which correspond to religious rituals. By varying feed rates, chickens have been trained to dance in worship for a feeder-god.
  9. Mar 5, 2004 #8
    Well I don't take the bible literally nor believe that Genesis is any more than folk tales. Every culture has creation myths. Yet I believe that God created and is the master of the universe. As I have often said; "God said let there be light. Big Bang!"
  10. Mar 5, 2004 #9
    Now that you mention it, there are a lot of ritualistic things that do occur in the animal kingdom, but these things typically entail some sort of mating ritual, and it's kind of hard to imagine as a direct sign of "God worship." However, since religion is supposed to represent "the marriage" of mankind to God, then maybe there's something there?
  11. Mar 5, 2004 #10
    Intellegent Design

    Neither Creationism or Evolutionism can explain the "Intellegent Design" apparently found in Nature.
  12. Mar 5, 2004 #11
    Re: Intellegent Design

    Neither can "intelligent design", which is such nonsense that it barely qualifies as pseudoscience.
  13. Mar 5, 2004 #12
    Re: Re: Intellegent Design

    Intellegent Design is not without scientific foundation. It is evident in both the architecture of the universe and the features of living systems.
  14. Mar 5, 2004 #13
    Re: Re: Re: Intellegent Design

    It is UTTERLY without scientific foundation. In fact, the features of living systems almost proves ID to be wrong.
  15. Mar 6, 2004 #14
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Intellegent Design

    Almost proves, that means then not quite. Just you or anbody else is not sure. I said there was evidence, and biological systems show plenty of it. Creationism is a fariry tale and Evolutionism does not explain "Intellegent Design"
  16. Mar 6, 2004 #15
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intellegent Design

    No, see, science is always provisional, therefore we can never claim to know anything 100%. However, while evolutionary theories aren't perfect, "Intelligent Design" contains NO theories.
  17. Mar 6, 2004 #16


    User Avatar

    I do not think Intelligent Design has any scientific credibility. Even if it was shown that an additional process is required, it is by nature impossible to show that it is intelligent, and even less likely that it is of a similar intelligence to humans. The thing ultimately constitutes an attempt to shoehorn God where He simply does not fit, hurting religion (perhaps deservingly?) and science in the process. Moreover, evolution is a complex dynamical process. It relies on the lack of order, the existence of randomness.
  18. Mar 6, 2004 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    How much intelligence do you need to make the universe go "Bang!"? bigly of course.
    I like that!

    Except for the "He" part; didn't you know that God is trans-metagender? metasex (category1, class A) on Mondays (except when there's a full Moon), superposition of transfinite class metametasex (mode zeta) on Fridays, and so on ...
  19. Mar 6, 2004 #18
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2004
  20. Mar 6, 2004 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I haven't been a Creationist since I was a kid, but I would be a little careful about sweeping statements like: "A healthy population of a unique species can not grow from 2 individuals." The reason I say this is that there certainly exist species even today on Earth which do something even more impressive (in a sense) than that. I am talking about asexual organisms which produce progeny quite successfully. Put just one organism of that type in a suitable environment, come back later and you will find lots of descendents.
  21. Mar 7, 2004 #20
    Your entitled to your opinion thats not mine and its not held by myself. Your missing the point what "Intellegent Design " is, it is more not less or equal. Things fit where they fit.

    You compare then evolution to QM? If that was the case there would be no two of anything.

    Whats more supprising to me is that Nereid agrees with your post. Now i ask myself, why would on another thread, he be trying to scientifically, try to calulate with specific data, if we were in the midst of a sixth mass extintion. We could just say for no reason at all it might or might not occur.

    Just enough, that the point
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?