Just wondering what the creationists think about this one.
If bird flu mutates into a virus capable of being transmitted from human to human then that would in effect prove one of the mechanisms of evolution- that is, mutation of a genome.
So, would the creationist position be that such a bird flu mutation would be impossible, or would it be a divine manipulation?
Originally posted by amannionA priori, the creationist is not necessarily committed to a denial of evolutionary theory. Such a mutation could still be perfectly compatible with a creationist account.
Just wondering what the creationists think about this one.
If bird flu mutates into a virus capable of being transmitted from human to human then that would in effect prove one of the mechanisms of evolution- that is, mutation of a genome.
So, would the creationist position be that such a bird flu mutation would be impossible, or would it be a divine manipulation?
If they were to say it was 'divine manipulation', it wouldn't exactly paint their creator in such a favorable light -- His going out of His way to cause people to suffer and all.
Of course, if you're talking about the young earthers, or those who vehemently deny evolutionary theory, then who knows what they will say. They come up with all kinds of gibberish.
Originally posted by LemonJelloAnd yet so much creationist literature portrays it as antithetical to evolution.
A priori, the creationist is not necessarily committed to a denial of evolutionary theory. Such a mutation could still be perfectly compatible with a creationist account.
If they were to say it was 'divine manipulation', it wouldn't exactly paint their creator in such a favorable light -- His going out of His way to cause people to suffer and ...[text shortened]... ionary theory, then who knows what they will say. They come up with all kinds of gibberish.
I'm keen to see the type of gibberish they use for this topic ...
Originally posted by amannionThread 39719
And yet so much creationist literature portrays it as antithetical to evolution.
I'm keen to see the type of gibberish they use for this topic ...
Originally posted by amannionJust an interesting question, if virus' evolve as we all know they do, and if virus' are not considered to be alive, then it is not only life that evolves. This clearly violates the popular creationist, no evolution before life statement.
Just wondering what the creationists think about this one.
If bird flu mutates into a virus capable of being transmitted from human to human then that would in effect prove one of the mechanisms of evolution- that is, mutation of a genome.
So, would the creationist position be that such a bird flu mutation would be impossible, or would it be a divine manipulation?
Originally posted by amannionStrawman and a fallacy of definition; you present microevolutional evidence and suggest it being proof of macroevolution. The virus mutated into a virus, which will mutate into another virus. There is no evidence of the genetic barrier being broken and it mutating into an essentially living (and non-viral) organism such as a bacterium.
So, would the creationist position be that such a bird flu mutation would be impossible, or would it be a divine manipulation?
Btw, a virus requires an already advanced DNA/RNA duplication system to be able to reproduce.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat? Since when do creationists deny mutations?
Just an interesting question, if virus' evolve as we all know they do, and if virus' are not considered to be alive, then it is not only life that evolves. This clearly violates the popular creationist, no evolution before life statement.
See my last sentence above...
