Extent of Mutational Capability

Normally creationists won't admit that evolutionary change occurred through time. They'll allow microevolution but not macroevolution.But a few silly creationists, such as Woodmorappe and Lubenow, think that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man--all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel! (Scientists see these as separate species.)This means that these creationists not only endorse evolutionary change at the speciation level, but they see it occurring several hundreds of times faster than do paleontologists, and in reverse! Or to put it in other terms, creation "science" is exactly the opposite of real science: nothing more than religious apologetics.

Yes, definitely. That's why the creationists' tales about these critters being "racial variants" of modern man that developed after Babel are so silly!(Two of my fields for the Ph.D. exams were fossil man and human osteology.)

We have good evidence for the evolution of fully modern humans from earlier critters, both different species and different genera.Direct observation is not needed, except by creationists arguing against evolution for religious reasons.

From your question it appears you feel things need to be personally observed to be science. This is nonsense, and most likely creationist nonsense.Further proof that creationists should never attempt science: they have neither the education nor the inclination for it.

Intelligent design was cooked up a couple of decades ago when creation "science" was outlawed by a US Supreme Court decision.One of the best lines of evidence is as follows:

The term "cdesign proponentsists" came into being following the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in Pennsylvania over the legitimacy of teaching intelligent design as science.

​

A crucial piece of the defense (pro-intelligent design) was a book called Of Pandas and People which was marketed as a science textbook for middle and high school children. During the trial, previous copies of the book were subpoenaed for review. It was demonstrated that, whenever previous versions of the book had the terms "creationist" or "creationism" or some similar form, it had been replaced in almost all cases with the terms "design proponents" and "intelligent design" in later editions.

​

cdesign proponentsists - RationalWiki

So, I don't believe for a moment that intelligent design folks are evolutionists--they are the exact opposite, which is religious apologists.And it is well that creationists have reservations about intelligent design, as it was just "designed" to try and fool people in general and school boards in particular that it was science when in fact it was the exact opposite.

Right! That's their problem, isn't it?Any definition creationists come up with for "kind," which makes the "cat kind" and the "dog kind" come out the way they want, also makes the "ape kind" work as well, an idea which most of them absolutely reject!But then, they are relying on belief rather than evidence, so they can pick and choose what they believe and evidence be damned!Creation "science" -- the exact opposite of real science. Same as always.

In science, it is not proper to consider fictional events to be evidence or facts.This goes for "the flood," "young earth," and "the fall" as well. These are beliefs with no scientific support.What you can do is include those beliefs as assumptions in models, and test the models. But so far every such test has shown those assumptions (beliefs) to be invalid.You are seeing the same thing with "kinds." When tested against real-world evidence, the concept of kinds is shown to be invalid.

How does your claim stand up against evidence, such as:Evolution of primates - WikipediaOh, and don't neglect the arboreal primates. There are lots of those.

You cite a website titled "saintpaulscience.com" as your source.I don't trust any religious group or evangelical type who claims to be doing science. If they were to say the sun rises in the east I'd have to check it the next morning to see if their claims were correct. The reason is, so many of their claims have been found to be nonsense. See the Index to Creationist Claims for a refutation of a lot of their claims:An Index to Creationist ClaimsThere are so many such claims that they even have a name: PRATT--Point Refuted a Thousand Times. But that doesn't stop creationists from repeating these claims endlessly.In virtually all cases those folks are not doing science, rather they are doing religious apologetics--often fishing through the scientific literature for any perceived support for their religious beliefs, all the while ignoring any evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs. That's the exact opposite of science! We see a lot of that in this website.So, we have fossil and DNA evidence that supports the theory of evolution. No armchair math-based claims can overturn that theory. To overturn the theory of evolution you need fossils and DNA evidence that contradicts, or can't be explained by, the current theories, and you need dating results that show a young earth.Are you up to the challenge?

And what is "beneficial" or "neutral" can change significantly over time as each is measured only in relation to successful reproduction.

Looks like I was right in not trusting your source without looking at it.From the posts that followed mine it appears that site is Walter ReMine's!He's the one pushing the "Baraminology" nonsense! I'm familiar with that stuff--what a joke. He's just trying to make "kinds" seem scientific to bolster his religious beliefs. In fact, he's doing the exact opposite of science.

A simple google search shows you are wrong.Four perfect hands: An event never seen before (right?) | The Aperiodical[Didn't notice the "in order" part.]Edited by Coyote, : Correction

Here is an online lecture that I've posted to these threads before that demonstrates that the odds cited by creationists do not reflect reality. It is an hour long, so I can't post much here beyond the abstract:

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odellhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsbKzFdW2bM

There was no such bottleneck--that's a religious myth not supported by real-world evidence.I have personally obtained several dozen radiocarbon dates from the period 4500-4000 years ago. These were all from the western US. I have mtDNA from before to after that date which is identical, showing no trace of Near Eastern mtDNA as would be required after such a flood event. I have excavated quite a number of prehistoric sites which were occupied from before to after 4500 years ago without any interruption and without any evidence of flood erosion or deposits.Archaeologists all around the globe have evidence showing that there was no worldwide flood ca. 4500 years ago. Historical evidence shows the same thing. From the web: "The great days of Ancient Egypt fell between c. 3000 BC and c. 1000 BC..." That crosses the supposed date for the flood, but we are to believe that the Egyptians never noticed. The construction and use of Stonehenge also crosses the 4500 years ago date you have given for the flood.You can believe what you want, but don't mistake belief for fact.

Go back and reread my post Message 272.There were many details in there other than the Egyptian chronology, and you ignored those completely.Particularly telling is the continuity of mtDNA from before to after the dates attributed to the flood. These continuities have been found all over the world. Its so easy that I've found them in my own archaeological research.As for Egypt, why worry about the date of the first dynasty plus or minus a few hundred years when there is a long pre-dynastic record as well? No flood there either...