There WAS NO "environment" when the sediment was being laid down, it would have killed all the environment and everything living in it at the time, or actually, all the waves of sedimentary deposits already laid down would have.
That is your assumption. We don’t agree. That is not a lack of thought on our part, that’s you just rejecting our view on the matter out of hand.
It's not an assumption, it's the reasonable conclusion from the facts: nothing could live on the sedimentary layers continuous over great areas that make up the geological column. Tapeats over most of North America, etc.
But the "time periods" never were surface, that's a monumental delusion. I'm sure you won't get it because you don't want to get it, but maybe someone else will.
Your arrogant bluster is just a foolish bullying tactic. Too bad that’s all you’ve got.
Now THAT is an example of arrogant bluster.
It is a conclusion from the observed facts that the "time periods" were never surface: the prevalent lack of erosion and the knife-edge contacts.
You are right that nobody has any knowledge of trilobite genetics because nobody has ever seen a living trilobite. And since current genetics labors under evolutionist assumptions as does every other science related to biology, you get the wrong answer in all of them.
Which is just more bluster.
Actually it's just the reasonable conclusion from the facts.
Breeding programs are just an example to make the point that you can get dramatic new varieties of any living thing in a very short time
Breeding programs in fact speed up the process as should be fairly obvious.
As the rule, but as I go on to point out there's no reason it wouldn't happen just as rapidly in nature. All it would take is a few members of a population becoming geographically and therefore reproductively isolated from the parent population, breeding among themselves for whatever number of generations it takes until their combined genomes produce a brand new species/subspecies. Could even take only thirty years.
Selective breeding is far more controlled than nature. Funny how you miss the obvious. You will note that in Darwin’s examples selective breeding produced far more varied phenotypes than are known in the wild populations.
Yes of course, but the example was to demonstrate that it doesn't take millions of years to get new species. It takes extreme breeding practices to produce such dramatic phenotypes, such as Founder Effect, and that does happen in nature too -- cheetah, elephant seal -- but is also known to be detrimental to the health of the animal. Which breeders also discovered from their extreme selective breeding. Why would you argue about such well-known things anyway?
...it ought to be fair to use them as I use them.
I don’t think that misrepresention can be considered fair, and yes ignoring the differences between strong selective breeding and natural,selection is unfair. Darwin never did that. He accepted that natural selection was far slower.
What's unfair here is your method of arguing, since I never claimed equivalence, I used it as an example of how variation is produced and so did Darwin. However there's no reason such strong selection couldn't occur in nature too, depends on the environmental pressure.
This accomplishes the same thing for the isolated population that natural selection does, meaning the isolation itself: that is THE mechanism that brings about change, variety, microevolution. And although I've many times proposed that this could be studied in a laboratory, it really ought to be easy enough to recognize that it wouldn't take more than whatever number of generations are needed to sexually combine all the genetic material in the total population, the time having to do with the number of individuals you start with and the degree of reproductive isolation.
Which would still lead to you assuming that extreme and unlikely conditions were the only possibility, and assuming that mutations played no role. Neither assumption is obviously true, and the first should be obviously questionable even to you.
The problem here is your reading things into what I've said. I choose the controlled conditions because the point is easier to make, and controlled conditions may occur in nature too, often meaning geographic isolation. In nature there will also frequently be continued gene flow creating hybrid zones, and resumed gene flow, which make it harder to get the point across, although in fact those conditions also produce new species.
You know that the lizards on Pod Mrcaru only needed thirty years to become an entirely different species/subspecies from the original parent stock of ten individuals, and that wasn't a breeding program, just the isolation of a few individuals which must happen in natural very frequently
I will note that this is a rare phenomenon and nobody knows for sure how it happened.
What's rare about it is only that it was a very rare opportunity to see that evolution can occur very rapidly, which normally is not observable. Different species/subspecies are seen in nature with no evidence of how they developed and that has allowed for the huge estimates of time involved based on ToE assumptions. When there has been opportunity to see the evolution in action such as in the Pod Mrcaru lizards and the Jutland cattle, the time involved is very rapid, which ought to call the ToE time frames into question -- since they are all nothing but theory, and observation proves the theory wrong.
It still might be an environmental response, in part or whole.
Possibly, but it nevertheless defies the usual ToE time factor.
And yet you want us to believe that similar changes happened in hundreds or thousands of trilobite groups adding up to much more extensive change. And not as a possibility, but as a near certainty. That is obviously wrong. Which I suppose explains why you resort to bluster.
I am making a case for rapid evolution in contrast with the ToE's huge time spans. Wherever evolution is actually observed it is rapid and nowhere near the assumed time frames of the ToE. Extrapolating to the degree of variation seen in trilobite examples I think it very reasonable to suppose all those varieties only needed oh maybe hundreds of years to emerge, nowhere near the millions upon millions implied by their positions in the many layers in the geological column.
The problem of course is that evolutionists insist that a mutation had to be the cause, and I argue instead that no mutation is needed, all that you need is generations of sexual recombination of the existing genetic material.
I will just note that we have arguments and evidence which you are not addressing. Certainly our position on the role of mutations is defensible, which is more than can be said for your insistence that the trilobite diversification could plausibly occur in a few hundred years (and let me note you try to use that claim as evidence for your position!)
You have evidence of mutations here and there being an ingredient in the formation of a new species, you do not have evidence that suh an expressed nondeleterious mutation is anything more than a very occasional occurrence. I'm making the case for genetic potentials built in at the creation and observation supports this case.
And since there would have been quite a bit more variety in any population before the Flood than afterward, the degree of change from one subspecies of trilobite to another is obviously microevolution to the degree I'm talking about, within the Kind.
Which is obviously a simple case of assuming your paradigm. That is a serious weakness in your argument.
Actually it was merely an aside in recognition that there is a great deal of variety in the fossil trilobites, more than I would expect to occur in a given population today (although the dog Kind gives them some competition), which my paradigm does explain
Sure you can multiply your wrong arguments in many ways, happens all the time.
And yet evidence and reason are on my side, while you have only arrogance and bluster.
Funny, it looks the other way around to me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
