Summations Only

I think a great deal of junk in the genome fits with the Fall, being one of the ways death has worked on living systems.

No, that's just normal variation within a Kind, NOT evolutionary theory because the ToE is all about change from species to species, not just within a species. It is always claimed that microevolution IS evolution, what's to stop the changes from turning a reptile into a mammal? I've offered my own theory many times, but it has to be built into the limits of the genome itself for a particular species. If nothing else there is simply no evidence for evolution beyond the common variation of a Species or Kind. It's all theory, all assumption based on the theory.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The fact is that all the evidence supports intraspecies variation ONLY, that being all that is ever observed, and it's the extension to the idea of species evolving from species that is pure conjecture.

The only "new species" that have ever arisen are not really new species, they are nothing but the usual intraspecies variation, misnamed because a particular variation has reached the point where it is genetically incapable of breeding with the mother population. And honest observation should also lead to the recognition that at that point such a variation or race is too genetically depleted to evolve any further anyway. Nothing has ever been observed but intraspecies variation. That's all there is, there is no such thing as species-to-species change.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

All true except only very special snakes talk.

Sure you can define anything to deny reality if you want. That's how evolution is supported, very similar to the political stuff going on these days. Just make it up, sling the bull, if you lie enough it will become true. And it doesn't matter what the source of variation is, the processes of evolution have to eliminate most of it to bring out a new phenotype. Add all the mutations you want, if evolution is happening you're still going to get genetic depletion in the end because that's how new phenotypes are formed.

That is ridiculous. A few mutations in a population is not a new species. A new species -- really race or variation -- requires the increase of some alleles over others. With a population split you are going to get a new set of gene frequencies that usually differs from the original population, quite a bit in some cases. A number of generations of inbreeding in each population will bring out the high frequency phenotypes and in some cases lose the low frequency phenotypes altogether until eventually you have two new population with two new separate phenotypic presentations. Different races or variations.To get these different "species" requires LOSING the alleles for other phenotypes. The overall effect over time is loss of genetic diversity in each population. You get a new "species" or breed or race or variation, like a new population of green warblers or California salamanders, because you've lost the genetic material for the other kinds of green warblers or salamanders.Evolution costs, there is no way around it. Add all mutations you want, if evolution is happening you have to lose most of them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The only reason there as been "no effect" is that the ToE is not subject to testing/replication like normal science is. It's all a matter of interpretation and once the establishment is committed to it fat chance it's going to be seriously reconsidered anytime soon. Or, since some here and there do rethink it and give it up, fat chance the truth will ever become recognized by the establishment as a whole, barring supernatural intervention to open the eyes. There are good arguments on both sides it seems to me, but those against the ToE should have killed it long ago.

I don't read bare links. List the info on the board.

Design by an omniscient Designer explains it all just fine.

The roster of truly great people who became believers after a long time of typical worldly indoctrination proves you wrong. The latest I happen to have read about is Rosaria Butterfield who was a professor of English with a Marxist lesbian twist when she was persuaded to the truth of the Bible. C.S. Lewis was a professor of literature too when God reached down and snapped him up as well. Those two stand out in recent time for me but if I go back before Darwin there's a long list of them. There are plenty of non-greats who went through the same experience I'm sure: I was just as indoctrinated in evolution and the old earth when I became a believer in my late forties. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If I was easily indoctrinated it would have happened long before my late forties, and nobody persuaded me by the way, I got interested in the subject and read books over a period of years until I was finally persuaded. Butterfield may not really be a "great" but she was no pushover. Took a number of years during which she thought she was learning the Bible in order to debunk fundamentalism before she too saw the light. C.S. Lewis was a lot smarter than the likes of you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well the fact is that he did and you're the deluded one.

"...cannot communicate with all of us?" Where do you guys get such stuff?

Only by ignoring the fact that to get new phenotypes requires losing the genetic underpinnings of other phenotypes, for a net loss of genetic diversity as selection continues to create new species. If evolution requires losing genetic diversity eventually evolution has to come to a stop.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.