Again, you are arguing why Creationists should accept evolution. That isn’t the question raised by the OP. Meanwhile, a Creationist can understand drug resistance happens without understanding that it’s evidence of evolution. At least my mother does. To get by in the world, all she has to accept (on advice of a physician) is that an infection or cancer not responding to Treatment A indicates Treatment B should be tried. No understanding or acceptance of evolution required.
By the way, do you have any evidence that Creationists are misusing medications or refusing treatments because of their stance on evolution?
As regards microevolution vs. macroevolution, the point Voyager mentioned above should be emphasized. Creationists have no problem with the concept that natural selection will cause certain alleles to be preferred over time. But, they emphasize, this isn’t the addition of new genetic material, but rather merely a shift in frequency among genetic material already existing. Much as selective breeding doesn’t create new genes but merely increases the number of specimens with desirable traits. Bear in mind YECs think this whole process has only played out for 6000 years.
To get an understanding of their thinking on the subject, I again recommend (as I did earlier in the thread) looking at Answers In Genesis. Among other things, they have published a book called Evolution Exposed by Roger Patterson. Look, for example, at Chapter 3 (Natural Selection vs. Evolution) and Chapter 8 (Biological Evolution). Warning: If you understand evolution, this stuff may make your head explode. And, if you think this is bad, you should see their stuff trying to make sense of Noah’s Flood. I’m NOT saying AiG makes a good case. I’m saying they’re good at muddling the issues enough that someone committed to inerrancy can find cover. That, I submit, is a large part of the answer to the OP.
I think the point was that our taxonomic framework is an attempt to apply discrete categories to a domain with continuous entities in it - which means that application will sometimes be arbitrary.
I understand the argument about semantics. I understand it so much that I challenged Dio’s language as being not stiff enough to stand up to Creationist competition.
Remember, I said “that’s a micro v. macro thing” where I purposely used Creationist lingo to address a Creationist thought. The use of “thing” kind of implies the context - no? Like, ‘that partial-birth abortion thing’ they talk about or ‘that God thing’.
Anyway, I clearly stated my position on the subject.
Moving on: Not all Creationists are Christians. Not all Creationists believe that the world has been here for 6k years. Heck, traditional Jews a century ago thought that man has been here for at least 7k, but still concede that they don’t know God’s concept of time.
sigh
There are 10,000 reasons why someone would object to human evolution as is presented by the scientific community.
A Christian will tell you that gravity keeps your feet on the ground, but God can pull you right off of it. For many monotheistic people, God will always overpower science. For others, God and evolution don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
sigh Refusing to engage in metaphysical or philosophical ideas kind of stunts things. Christians did it in Antiquity and look where* that* got us.
The more the “evolution community” assaults a person’s religion or natural belief system, the more believable the Creationist looks. For the Creationist, they have nothing to lose. What do you have to lose?
eta: quantum physicists and God seem to be a better matched pair.
the previous pope has accepted the validity of the evolution theory.
scientists say we came from africa only because the oldest links were found there. in paleontology, they estimate that a living organism has a million-to-one chance at becoming a fossil. not a very good batting average for “representative” fossils, right?
proof to evolution does not disprove the existence of god, or even intelligent design. evolution is governed by physical laws and those laws were born when the universe was formed. the main debate lies with the formation of the universe. everything followed logically from that formation (or creation.)
Actually, there are numerous indicators to indicate the “out of Africa” hypothesis. Relative genetic diversity, specific alleles that can be traced to “founder effect” events, etc.
The various claims for either different sites for human origin or polygenesis claims have all been swept away by genetic evidence.
All of those can increase the chances of speciation as well. They’re not some unstoppable forces that will prevent macro-evolution from occurring, which I was assuming you were implying.
It’s possible, though unless something goes really wrong it won’t be soon.
This is true. Valuable things to humans don’t have natural meaning, but they exist for us. One interesting aspect of human evolution is how these came to be. Humans can be savage, brutal, and savage as evolution hints at.
The interesting thing is we can be compassionate, giving, gentle, even in ways with no obvious payoff except satisfying an evolved sense of concern, sympathy, and empathy for others. The cool thing is studying why that is leads to interesting evolutionary discoveries. Even if helping someone out might hinder your reproductive success, living in a population of helpers increases everyone’s reproductive success against populations who lack this. If your fellows nurture you and help you grow, as you do your fellows, then everyone does better. Thus genes for empathy potential were spread to all humans.
Human ideas of love, compassion, justice, etc. have nature’s endorsement just as much as a lion chasing down gazelle. But they also makes as much since in nonhuman things as calling the lion a murderer.
First of all, “Cro-Magnon” is not a species designations. Cro-Magnons is what we call the early H. sapiens (us) in Europe.
Neanderthals and modern humans probably interbred somewhat in Eurasia, but the lines were separate for so long that it kinda sorta makes sense to keep them as separate species. If we transported ourselves back in time to about 100k years ago, we might have classified them as two subspecies of a common species, but it’s hard to tell. If Neanderthals, for example, didn’t have language and modern humans did, that would be a pretty big difference to exist between subspecies.
At any rate, applying species designations to extinct populations is fraught with problems. Essentially, we do the best we can, but some people are lumpers are some are splitters.
In response to the OP… its because of the black and white, absolutist thinking that I personally associate with creationists, who are typically (but not always) conservative, based on my own experience. (With us or against us, good or evil, capitalist or communist, etc etc).
Basically, they think that EITHER Creationism OR Evolution are true. They believe in Creation. Thus, Evolution must be false.
They fail to accept, or perhaps even understand, that proving evolution does not disprove God, or that disproving evolution does not prove God.
Evolutionists start with a false premise, that there is no God involved, and therefor are in error by default. There is also so many next to impossible leaps that a unguided process could not make those leaps. Common sense, some may even say critical thinking, steps in and says that this evolution theory stuff is a load of hogwash. And evolution doesn’t have the benefit of saying the impossible sounding stuff God used His magic to do as creationist do.
I haven’t spoke to the Pope about evolution but I would be willing to step out on a limb and say that he does believe there is a God who is active in this world.
No correction needed
As I stated (well implied) evolution with a God who can use magic is acceptable and reasonable. Evolution without a God or without magic is laughable. Evolution would be prove of the existence of God, for if it happened/s it would require one. Though evolution is not proven in that sense nor may ever be.
Kind of like that arbitrary time thing. 
