Summations Only

No the idea of a natural end to evolution does NOT come from the Fall or anything except an understanding of how evolution has to work. It's pure wishfulness that mutations contribute anything to natural processes.Pelycodus appears tp be a series of varieties or races of the same species, which occurs all the time in natural microevolution. I don't accept that the depth of burial says anything about which variation preceded or followed which, and with fossils there's no way to tell anything about the genetic variability anyway. But with a known line of descent of living things the latest in the line should show the least genetic diversity of the variations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : change wistfulness to wishfulness

There's nothing in the diagram to show the changes that you claim. And I've said that technically speciation DOES occur, it's just not what you all think it is, so if this really is an example of speciation I'd say the same about it too.I'm a creationist, I may or may not use the explanations given by conventional Science. Remember? This IS a debate you know.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But of course conventional science IS wrong about some things. I know that comes as a terrific shock to you but alas, tis true. And an even bigger shock of course is that creationists ARE right about a lot of stuff you refuse to think about.Conventional science is totally absolutely delusionally wrong about what mutations do for instance. It's all imaginary/conjectural too, not at all scientifically established despite the claims.

I'm enjoying your contributions here, hope you'll stick around. I didn't know how far you get into the science questions but I'm glad to see you are up on them.But I don't agree with what you say above, because the ToE contradicts the Bible if you believe that death did not occur until the Fall of man.

He's quite right. Antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution, and every time someone gives what is supposed to be an example besides that, it's always microevolution which has been recognized since forever.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I don't know what to call changes in bacteria so I don't mean to call it microevolution, which I think of as describing sexually reproducing creatures that have built-in genetic variability. So I meant to say "besides" antibiotic resistance. Neither is evolution as the ToE leads us to think of it, however. Microevolution is normal variation that we see all the time, there is no evidence whatever that it does anything other than vary the Species into varieties and races. Darwin made a huge unevidenced leap to the idea that the changes seen all the time continue on to create a completely new species.

Such small changes are not evolution. The bacterial change involves a single mutation, that's not evolution. The ToE assumes the capacity for changes in the basic structure of the creature, which has never been shown, and as I've argued umpteen times here really can't happen because of the loss of information change requires.

Definitional word games are a favorite here I know, but macroevolution doesn't exist and all the evidence is nothing but microevolution. One mutation in bacteria is not evolution as the ToE leads us to expect.

What I said is simply a fact: The only evidence is microevolution. According to science. There is no evidence of any change except within a Species.One mutation is not evidence of the ToE.

That's not exactly how it works but I don't want to get into a big flap about mutation at this point so for the sake of argument I accept it, but that describes only microevolution which is not in dispute. Only macroevolution is in dispute. So no, change that fits the ToE as usual has not been demonstrated and never will be.The peppered moths and the pocket mice also show that small-scale changes occur in a single gene that controls color. Not evidence for the ToE.Fossil evidence is really a joke since you'd have to show that it's genetically possible to get from the complex reptile ear to the complex mammal ear, but all you have is the bones and the assumption that it happened. That's not science, and the bones alone cannot demonstrate the ToE.ABE: This bickering could go on indefinitely but since Percy gave the reminder that this thread is about whale evolution this will be my last post here.I don't want to get into the whale discussion but I thought it had been shown that the bones so wishfully called leg bones are actually stabliizers for the genital region.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course if it's really a big lie ...